NationStates Jolt Archive

The past 30 years of American politics and journalism have held plenty of controversy over the usage, practice, and declaration of what it means to stand for liberal principles in the United States. From foreign perspectives in particular, what kind of viewpoints do you guys carry about leftist thinking in American politics?

Mind that I understand how America tends to carry relatively liberal views on the global spectrum. I'm just wondering how foreigners view leftist politics and organizations in America i.e. the ACLU, NPR, PETA, NOW, etc. in addition to the Democratic Party and liberal periodical publications such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Nation.

What you americans consider the left-side of the spectrum is usually center at best, or moderate-right at worst, by the rest of the world. Then there's a huge empty field, with nothingness in it. And then you have some ultra-radical nutjobs who label themselves leftists while really being only that, radicals.

So no, US liberalism gets a 1 in 10 from me, not because I'm ideologically opposed to liberal ideas, but rather because US liberalism is largely a myth from my perspective.

Hahahahaha. If we were to apply say Canadian politics in the US, the Conservative Party would be slightly left of centre, the Liberal Party would be the pinkos, the NDP would be the islamo-fascists, and the Bloc Quebequois would have their headquarters blown up for not being patriotic enough.

True dat. Left of center/right of center politics are completely subjective to the nation they are applied in.

Mind that I understand how America tends to carry relatively liberal views on the global spectrum.

Hahahahaha. If we were to apply say Canadian politics in the US, the Conservative Party would be slightly left of centre, the Liberal Party would be the pinkos, the NDP would be the islamo-fascists, and the Bloc Quebequois would have their headquarters blown up for not being patriotic enough.

Fake-liberals, -10 out of 10. Might as well call themselves what they really are, conservatives.

I trade Internet jokes about Dubya
They sure are funny to me.
But don’t even think about asking
Me to give up my new SUV
I don’t know what you mean about oil,
I just wish that gas could be free,
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Well I’ve signed about a thousand petitions,
And my golf score is six under par.
I keep myself up on the issues
By listening to N.P.R.,
And you know that I’m changing the world
With these stickers all over my car!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Well you know that I’m not a racist
Been on the side of the blacks all along.
And I always give a few extra dollars
To the young man who mows my lawn!
And I’ve never read Emma Goldman
But I know that she must have been wrong!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

I went to that pro-choice rally,
I think women should get equal pay.
But it’s sure nice that my wife cooks me dinner,
And puts my clean laundry away!
And maybe our country ain’t perfect,
But revolution is never the way.
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

You know I support Gay marriage,
And I want the environment clean.
But I’m too busy at work to take action,
So I’m just voting for Howard Dean.
I know we must work inside the system,
It’s the best one that I’ve ever seen!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

I cheered when they caught Saddam
I knew that the news wouldn’t lie,
Thank god that the war is now over,
And my 401-K is on the rise!
Because you know that I love my country:
best democracy money can buy!
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal!

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

;)

The past 30 years of American politics and journalism have held plenty of controversy over the usage, practice, and declaration of what it means to stand for liberal principles in the United States. From foreign perspectives in particular, what kind of viewpoints do you guys carry about leftist thinking in American politics?

Mind that I understand how America tends to carry relatively liberal views on the global spectrum. I'm just wondering how foreigners view leftist politics and organizations in America i.e. the ACLU, NPR, PETA, NOW, etc. in addition to the Democratic Party and liberal periodical publications such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Nation.

The only Liberals in America exist solely on the internet. By global standards we're very conservative.

No, what we Americans consider left is considered ultra-left by the rest of the world

Um... what?

What you americans consider the left-side of the spectrum is usually center at best, or moderate-right at worst, by the rest of the world. Then there's a huge empty field, with nothingness in it. And then you have some ultra-radical nutjobs who label themselves leftists while really being only that, radicals.

So no, US liberalism gets a 1 in 10 from me, not because I'm ideologically opposed to liberal ideas, but rather because US liberalism is largely a myth from my perspective.

No, what we Americans consider left is considered ultra-left by the rest of the world and ultra-right by Eurocentrists who consider themselves the rest of the world.

And then you have some ultra-radical nutjobs who label themselves leftists while really being only that, radicals.

Who would those be?

Um, yes. Consider the ultra conservative Middle Eastern societies and the totalitarian societies of East/Southeast Asia and Africa.

Oh, socially? You could make a case for that. (But so what? Should we regard Saudi Arabia as an embodiment of progress?)

Not economically.

Um... what?

Um, yes. Consider the ultra conservative Middle Eastern societies and the totalitarian societies of East/Southeast Asia and Africa. Considering that they outnumber the generally left Europeans by at least 3 to 1, I would say that globally, the American Right is left. At least moderate rightists, anyway.

what is american liberalism missing that would qualify it as lefist if it were included in the platform?

Um, yes. Consider the ultra conservative Middle Eastern societies and the totalitarian societies of East/Southeast Asia and Africa. Considering that they outnumber the generally left Europeans by at least 3 to 1, I would say that globally, the American Right is left. At least moderate rightists, anyway.

The difference is that those ultra conservative countries don't label right-wingers as left-wingers, and moderate rightists as communists.

Oh, socially? You could make a case for that. (But so what? Should we regard Saudi Arabia as an embodiment of progress?)

Not economically.

Socially, we're phenominally left, even if we're not as left as Europe. Economically, we have quite a lot of programs (The US Social Security program is the largest government program in the world), even if we don't have universal healthcare... Very few countries outside of Europe/Canada (they effortlessly surpass us) can match our economic programs.

I would say as a whole, the US is a left nation.

Economically, we have quite a lot of programs

"A lot" tells us nothing. First, it's an absolute measure, and we're speaking relatively. Second, quantity of programs just isn't a very good measure of measuring economic leftism... among other reasons, because monetary value is a more accurate measure of the extent of welfare statism.

(The US Social Security program is the largest government program in the world)

The US economy is the largest in the world. So?

Very few countries outside of Europe/Canada... can match our economic programs.

Maybe not monetarily; again, we have the largest economy in the world. So what?

The US is not the only non-European country in the world with social programs.

The US economy is the largest in the world. So?



Maybe not monetarily; again, we have the largest economy in the world. So what?

The US is not the only non-European country in the world with social programs.

Yes, but the US is one of the few non-European countries with effective social programs. The US also spreads the burden to state governments and corporations, so the federal figure isn't entirely accurate. Once again, we aren't the bastion of left-economic thinking, but we certainly beat countries such as Russia and Nigeria.

Yes, but the US is one of the few non-European countries with effective social programs.

Even if that's true, so what?

We're referring to the ideologies of the population, and the difficulties in implementing leftist economic policies have nothing to do with what they consider to be "left" and "right."

edit:
but we certainly beat countries such as Russia and Nigeria.

I skipped over this originally, because it really isn't at issue... but Russia? At least Russia under Putin? It's actively seeking to bring much of its economy back under state control, after the disaster neoliberal capitalism inflicted upon it... and these moves seem to have popular support.

We can dispute how genuinely "leftist" such moves are, but they are certainly far from the free-market capitalist model embraced by the US.

Even if that's true, so what?

We're referring to the ideologies of the population, and the difficulties in implementing leftist economic policies have nothing to do with what they consider to be "left" and "right."

Most of the planet's population is too uneducated to know the difference between right and left. And if North Korea proclaims itself to be socially left and everyone knows that's a fraud, does the mere act of proclamation make them more left than the US?

I skipped over this originally, because it really isn't at issue... but Russia? At least Russia under Putin? It's actively seeking to bring much of its economy back under state control, after the disaster neoliberal capitalism inflicted upon it... and these moves seem to have popular support.

We can dispute how genuinely "leftist" such moves are, but they are certainly far from the free-market capitalist model embraced by the US.

Russia is more an oligarchy than anything else, FYI.

Since I have to go now, I'll sum up what I have been trying to say:

The US, when you compare it to the rest of the world, is very left socially, even if Europe beats it. Economically, the US is not as left as it is socially, but still pretty left. Our workers are far better off than they are in most of the rest of the world. Just because a country has fraudulent social justice programs that exist in name only doesn't actually make them more left. In the US, much of the load gets shifted to corporations. The workers still get taken care of, just not by the feds. If that makes us "right", then the standards you are using are ridiculous because our workers still receive better care than most of the rest of the "left-leaning" world (Europe is once again excluded as they clearly beat us).

Hahahahaha. If we were to apply say Canadian politics in the US, the Conservative Party would be slightly left of centre, the Liberal Party would be the pinkos, the NDP would be the islamo-fascists, and the Bloc Quebequois would have their headquarters blown up for not being patriotic enough.

lolz QFT! :D


.............what is this thread debating exactly? :confused:

Most of the planet's population is too uneducated to know the difference between right and left.

Utter nonsense. A lack of formal education--even so far as illiteracy--hardly precludes an understanding of politics.

Officially uneducated people have formed the mass of a great many social movements.

Russia is more an oligarchy than anything else, FYI.

But Putin has shown that he can contest the oligarchs when he so pleases.

Just because a country has fraudulent social justice programs that exist in name only doesn't actually make them more left.

But if they do it to please leftist sentiments in the population, my point still holds.

In the US, much of the load gets shifted to corporations. The workers still get taken care of, just not by the feds.

Yes, and this is the capitalist way: leave it to corporations, who will be compelled by market logic to take care of workers.

That's unambiguously right-wing, not left-wing.

;)

"Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal"

still one of my favorite verses, ever.

still one of my favorite verses, ever.

One of mine, too. Sums it up rather well.

...what kind of viewpoints do you guys carry about leftist thinking in American politics?


The United States hasn't had "leftist" politics since the 1930s. The New Deal and Taft-Hartley are the reasons why we now have this idiotic idea that "left" means "corporate capitalism with food stamps."


Socially, we're phenominally left, even if we're not as left as Europe. Economically, we have quite a lot of programs (The US Social Security program is the largest government program in the world), even if we don't have universal healthcare... Very few countries outside of Europe/Canada (they effortlessly surpass us) can match our economic programs.


See? In the United States, "left" simply refers to the capitalist welfare state.


what is american liberalism missing that would qualify it as lefist if it were included in the platform?


Meaningful opposition to the capitalist state.

Meaningful opposition to the capitalist state.

so only communism or socialism counts as leftist?

we really are missing that for the most part.

what is american liberalism missing that would qualify it as lefist if it were included in the platform?

Balls.

Balls.

sorry not a good enough answer.

sorry not a good enough answer.

The real Left screams like a baby when it's kicked in the groin.

My real answer is close to TLO's. Not directly, not in the sense that to be leftist one must be against capitalism as such, but rather in that the lack of a major socialist branch of the US left gives the US left, as a whole, a lackluster and defensive quality.

Social democracy in Europe emerged as a way to incorporate elements of the anti-capitalist critique, and the very many who embraced it, into the prevailing political and economic order. The US has never had much of that critique, and thus doesn't have a proper "left" in that vein.

The real Left screams like a baby when it's kicked in the groin.

My real answer is close to TLO's. Not directly, not in the sense that to be leftist one must be against capitalism as such, but rather in that the lack of a major socialist branch of the US left gives the US left, as a whole, a lackluster and defensive quality.

Social democracy in Europe emerged as a way to incorporate elements of the anti-capitalist critique, and the very many who embraced it, into the prevailing political and economic order. The US has never had much of that critique, and thus doesn't have a proper "left" in that vein.

thanks for the answer. i really had no idea what y'all were talking about.

what you said is certainly true. we have never had much of a socialist or communist party here and since the fall of the soviet union its been pretty much dead.

now im wondering how strong the socialist elements are in europe. any analysis?

now im wondering how strong the socialist elements are in europe.

Well, that's a complicated question.

Unlike in the US, there are still large European Communist parties that seem genuinely committed to (some form of) socialism, though the socialist/social democratic parties are pretty clearly oriented toward welfare-state capitalism, not to any full-scale replacement.

Perhaps more importantly, though, the historical roots of the European left are very different from the US. Most of the center-left social democratic parties were once ultimately committed to some form of socialism, even if they are not now, and were founded explicitly as left-wing, pro-labor parties.

The Democratic Party's left-wing credentials, on the other hand, are largely the almost coincidental results of the New Deal and the 1960s.

;)

Just to be an old fuddy-duddy paleoliberal: Evan Greer's version is really funny, but I think Phil Ochs's original is funnier -- perhaps because it's meaner? I mean "tears ran down my spine" is a perfect parody of the sort of blitheringly meaningless thing people say when they're trying to be holier-than-thou.

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negroes
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter, don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I imagine Phil would appreciate the update, though. :)

Well, that's a complicated question.

Unlike in the US, there are still large European Communist parties that seem genuinely committed to (some form of) socialism, though the socialist/social democratic parties are pretty clearly oriented toward welfare-state capitalism, not to any full-scale replacement.

Perhaps more importantly, though, the historical roots of the European left are very different from the US. Most of the center-left social democratic parties were once ultimately committed to some form of socialism, even if they are not now, and were founded explicitly as left-wing, pro-labor parties.

The Democratic Party's left-wing credentials, on the other hand, are largely the almost coincidental results of the New Deal and the 1960s.

well there is some residual labor union ism in the democratic party but unions have been so weakened that they arent a big force in US politics any more. (although it was funny to watch the republican candidates try to throw a bone to unions when they met for a debate in detroit.)

so only communism or socialism counts as leftist?


Not necessarily. There are a whole host of positions that are opposed to the capitalist state, even many that otherwise support private property and market economics. Examples include more "moderate" socialist ideologies like Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic theory)), and even the left-wing of American Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_libertarianism) (yes, such a wing exists although it is exceedingly rare, especially post-9/11 when American Libertarianism was hit with an influx of neo/conservative Republicanism; this influx is what bumped me over from the left-wing of American Libertarianism into a moderate Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)). Even cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) or worker owned and operated business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) would be a significant step away from an economic system dominated by faceless and politically privileged monoliths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations).

The problem is not property and markets. The problem is that capitalism has acquired the status of ideological Holy of Holies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_holies) in American politics, with the businessperson and owner as High Priest. This means that capitalism has largely acquired an unassailable position free of criticism. The primary goal of anyone who values liberty, of course, is the assault and critique of all ideas in order to find what is conducive to freedom and reject everything else. I recognize no Priest, I bow down to no one, and I quit the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties (in that exact order) because I tired of associating with people who insist on living on their knees.

Um, yes. Consider the ultra conservative Middle Eastern societies and the totalitarian societies of East/Southeast Asia and Africa. Considering that they outnumber the generally left Europeans by at least 3 to 1, I would say that globally, the American Right is left. At least moderate rightists, anyway.

The American Right and the Islamic Right are not comparable, and I'll tell you why. The basic philosophy of the American Right is Personal Responsibillity, we believe that individuals should be responsible for their actions, and should reap both the rewards and wrath that comes with doing a good or bad job.

The Islamic Right is almost more like the American Left in that it worships culture and keeping things the same. Greater then their affection for Allah is their affection for avoiding change, and their fear of what any change might do to their values. While the American Right does think that law should be based on cultural values, they do not believe in the world being kept as an Amusement park, which is basically what the Islamsits believe in and is far more similar to the leftist "Cultural Determinist" camp who believe that interfering in another society or allowing technology to be introduced to third world societies kills their way of life.

The basic philosophy of the American Right is Personal Responsibillity, we believe that individuals should be responsible for their actions, and should reap both the rewards and wrath that comes with doing a good or bad job.

Oh, bullshit.

Explain what "personal responsibility" has to do with (say) opposing same-sex marriage.

The Islamic Right is almost more like the American Left in that it worships culture and keeping things the same.

Strange... at least parts of the American Left has been very keen on challenging oppressive aspects of culture, like sexism and homophobia, while the American Right has been keen on preserving them.

Greater then their affection for Allah is their affection for avoiding change, and their fear of what any change might do to their values.

Sounds like US religious fundamentalists.

to the leftist "Cultural Determinist" camp who believe that interfering in another society or allowing technology to be introduced to third world societies kills their way of life.

That's a ridiculous straw man.

Yes, (many) leftists believe that people should be to choose the kind of society they want to live in on their own, instead of having it be imposed by some external power.

But in no way is that equivalent to mindlessly preserving the status quo.

The Islamic Right is almost more like the American Left in that it worships culture and keeping things the same. Greater then their affection for Allah is their affection for avoiding change, and their fear of what any change might do to their values. While the American Right does think that law should be based on cultural values, they do not believe in the world being kept as an Amusement park, which is basically what the Islamsits believe in and is far more similar to the leftist "Cultural Determinist" camp who believe that interfering in another society or allowing technology to be introduced to third world societies kills their way of life.
The "Culture vs. Progress" issue is separate from the traditional left-right spectrum. There are leftists who want to protect cultures and ways of life even if it means defending reactionary and patriarchal societies against external interference, and there are leftists who want to industrialize the hell out of everyone and make the whole world a high-tech powerhouse, culture be damned.

Most present-day American liberals belong to the first camp. Socialists and communists such as myself, on the other hand, usually belong to the second camp. Usually.

A similar division exists on the "Culture vs. Progress" issue within the right. Here in Europe, the pro-culture rightists tend to be called conservatives and the pro-progress rightists tend to be called liberals. Hence it makes perfect sense for me as a European to call Islamists "conservative." Conservatism, in the classical sense, was all about protecting various aspects of the agricultural feudal social order against the changes introduced by the Industrial Revolution.

There are leftists who want to protect cultures and ways of life even if it means defending reactionary and patriarchal societies against external interference,

Leftists who don't think imperialism is a credible solution to patriarchy and reaction? Yeah, there are lots of us.

But leftists who are willing to support those cultural elements, as Plotadonia was suggesting? Not many of those... and their position has nothing to do with the main elements of leftist ideology.

Most present-day American liberals belong to the first camp.

Since when?

Socialists and communists such as myself, on the other hand, usually belong to the second camp. Usually.

Not this communist.

I believe in democracy and self-determination, "progress" (the oldest excuse in the world for all the worst kinds of imperialism and exploitation) be damned.

Leftists who don't think imperialism is a credible solution to patriarchy and reaction? Yeah, there are lots of us.
Well, if a country's choice is between a domestic reactionary bourgeoisie or a foreign imperialist bourgeoisie, I can see why one might be slightly better than the other, but I really can't see why we should be particularly interested in who wins.

Since when?
This may just be my impression as an outsider, but it seems most American liberals are now supporting an isolationist foreign policy.

I believe in democracy and self-determination, "progress" (the oldest excuse in the world for all the worst kinds of imperialism and exploitation) be damned.
I agree with you, though democracy and self-determination are included in my definition of "progress" - I do not believe progress is possible without them.

Well, if a country's choice is between a domestic reactionary bourgeoisie or a foreign imperialist bourgeoisie, I can see why one might be slightly better than the other, but I really can't see why we should be particularly interested in who wins.

I agree that there's a worthy distinction to be made between the sort of collective self-determination that might be defended as a part of freedom, and a mindless nationalism that takes the existing power relations within the society in question as legitimate and definitive.

But it seems to me that the record of imperialism is awful enough that we should actively struggle against it... even if sometimes it means protecting reactionary regimes. Of course, we should also support movements within the country that aim to secure freedom and equality, even if it means displacing "tradition."

This may just be my impression as an outsider, but it seems most American liberals are now supporting an isolationist foreign policy.

Certainly not on principled anti-imperialist grounds. And no, they're not, really. They just oppose Iraq because it's a complete fucking disaster.

I agree with you, though democracy and self-determination are included in my definition of "progress" - I do not believe progress is possible without them.

The point is greater than that. Democracy and self-determination are the only legitimate means to define worthy "progress."

The struggle for freedom and equality for everyone everywhere should absolutely be supported unconditionally, regardless of "culture"--we should never defend patriarchy, heterosexism, racism, and undemocratic regimes on the grounds of cultural pluralism. To do so is to undermine the very logic of freedom and equality that underlies the justification of collective self-determination in the first place. In no way, however, does this mean that our own ideas of "progress" and "prosperity" should be imposed on everyone else. Among other things, a general adoption of our lifestyles globally would cause incredible and completely unsustainable ecological damage.

Oh, bullshit.

Explain what "personal responsibility" has to do with (say) opposing same-sex marriage.

Just because "personal responsibillity" is a value does not mean there are not other values.

Strange... at least parts of the American Left has been very keen on challenging oppressive aspects of culture, like sexism and homophobia, while the American Right has been keen on preserving them.

Not Sexism; may I remind you there is no democrat politician, not even Hillary Clinton herself, as successful as Condoleeza Rice. Many right-wingers consider Margaret Thatcher one of the greatest hero's of the cold war, and few will have any trouble with a woman who makes something of herself. I live in a family that is very right-wing, and we have lots of successful strong women.

As for Homophobia, again, it depends upon where your values lie.

But as for keeping things the same, I don't know of too many groups more reactionary then the idiots up in the Pacific Northwest who asked my parents to dig a swimming-pool sized hole in their backyard to extract a tiny volume of leaked oil, probably causing far greater environmental damage then the entire oil tank would've done.

Sounds like US religious fundamentalists.

Maybe a few, I never said there were none, but there's nothing particularly reactionist about believing abortion is murder or marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's merely definitions. Where does life begin? What is marriage? And what is homosexuality? That's no more reactionary then you opposing murder.

I personally disagree with my party on these accounts, part of why I'm voting for Rudy, but I can still see where they're coming from and I can tell you that claims of a "American Taliban" from these people is a whole lot of hot air.

It is very different in both spirit and form to oppose people watching movies and wearing certain kinds of clothes because it might corrupt their cultural values then to oppose people getting abortions because it is murder. I do not agree with it, but one is clearly trying to coddle people agianst the modern world while the other is ordinary law enforcement.

Again, I fear the environmentalists/cultural determinists have destroyed any claims of progress.

That's a ridiculous straw man.

Yes, (many) leftists believe that people should be to choose the kind of society they want to live in on their own, instead of having it be imposed by some external power.

But in no way is that equivalent to mindlessly preserving the status quo.

"Instead of having it imposed..." Check out the folks in Seattle who are shutting down perfectly good parking garages to force people on to busses, despite the fact that everyone knows the Seattle busses never run on time. But as for the "straw man," I can assure you there have been many cases where the left has "mindlessly" opposed development on the grounds of interfering with tribal behavior when the tribes themselves have supported it. I will agree with you that people should be allowed to choose how to live their lives, and if they choose to live them in the modern world or anything like it, the fact that they are a "rare tribe" with "rare habits" should not interfere with this.

It is true that not all leftists are of this form. But there are far more leftists of this form then rightists, they may make a small majority among leftists these days, and the Islamic Conservatives do fit it.

Just because "personal responsibillity" is a value does not mean there are not other values.

Well, you did say it was "the basic principle"... and more importantly, if there are other values then your entire point, that preserving culture has nothing to do with personal responsibility, is irrelevant.

American rightists might believe in both personal responsibility and preserving the cultural status quo.

Not Sexism; may I remind you there is no democrat politician, not even Hillary Clinton herself, is as successful as Condoleeza Rice.

Hillary Clinton is pretty unambiguously more successful than Condoleeza Rice... not only was she an advisor to her husband, but unlike Rice she's been elected to the Senate and has a very good shot at winning the presidency.

In any case, so what? The broad struggle against sexism (not just "whose female politicians do better") has pretty much always been a project of the Left, opposed by the Right.

As for Homophobia, again, it depends upon where your values lie.

That's right.

Leftists believe in the value of freedom, equality, and justice.

Rightists believe in the value of preserving the oppressive cultural status quo at the expense of all three, at least if it's been so decreed by an imaginary dictator in the sky.

But as for keeping things the same, I don't know of too many groups more reactionary then the idiots up in the Pacific Northwest who asked my parents to dig a swimming-pool sized hole in their backyard to extract a tiny volume of leaked oil, probably causing far greater environmental damage then the entire oil tank would've done.

The relevant value there is not "keeping things the same", it's protecting the environment. Which is a worthy aim regardless of your view regarding cultural change.

Maybe a few, I never said there were none, but there's nothing particularly reactionist about believing abortion is murder or marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That's disingenuous. If this "matter of definitions" is connected to traditional cultural definitions, of course it's reactionary politics.

but I can still see where they're coming from

Yeah, so can I. Only I don't think "fags are yucky" and "empowered women make me feel insecure" serve as very good excuses.

It is very different in both spirit and form to oppose people watching movies and wearing certain kinds of clothes because it might corrupt their cultural values

Another straw man. The objection is not to "watching movies" or "wearing certain kinds of clothes" as such. The objection is to the way global capitalism takes choice away.

Any given person may still have the individual choice to refrain from buying a given good. But people as a society lack the collective choice to decide not to have the global capitalist market dictate to them which choices are on offer. Cultural preservation is not a good in itself... but when economic and cultural change occur as the result of external forces, and not as a consequence of the self-determination of the relevant people, that's a problem.

"Instead of having it imposed..." Check out the folks in Seattle who are shutting down perfectly good parking garages to force people on to busses, despite the fact that everyone knows the Seattle busses never run on time.

Red herring. Protecting the environment is a separate issue entirely, and one where we should (we must) impose upon those who will not comply.

But as for the "straw man," I can assure you

Oh, the assurances of a politically-motivated critic! How trustworthy.

there have been many cases where the left has "mindlessly" opposed development on the grounds of interfering with tribal behavior when the tribes themselves have supported it.

Prove it. And what does it mean to say that "the tribes themselves" have supported it? Certain representatives of the tribes, that may or may not represent the will of the tribe as a whole?

they may make a small majority among leftists these days

I'm not convinced that people like this exist in substantial numbers at all, let alone a "small majority"... and unlike you I'm actually a leftist, and talk to and associate with other leftists. :rolleyes:

Well, you did say it was "the basic principle"... and more importantly, if there are other values then your entire point, that preserving culture has nothing to do with personal responsibility, is irrelevant.

My point is not that American Rightists do not believe in anything besides Personal Responsibillity. My point is that Islamic Rightists DON'T believe in personal responsibillity, and that their veiw is of using governance to coddle the masses rather then enforce a basic law.

Hillary Clinton is pretty unambiguously more successful than Condoleeza Rice... not only was she an advisor to her husband, but unlike Rice she's been elected to the Senate and has a very good shot at winning the presidency.

The only reason that she has "a very good shot at winning the presidency" is 1) there's an incredibly unpopular war going on and 2) people want Bill back. Depending upon your hubbie ain't exactly the feminist spirit, which is why in my book Hillary is a non-matter. It should also be noted that Condoleeza Rice would be a very strong candidate if she had entered in to the Primary, which she did not, and as for the senate, again, she was elected because of Bill. By comparison, Condoleeza Rice has crawled right out of the woodworks and found her way by her own strength and volition to a very strong, INDEPENDENT position in the government.

In any case, so what? The broad struggle against sexism (not just "whose female politicians do better") has pretty much always been a project of the Left, opposed by the Right.

If it's opposed by the right, why are strong female politicians being elected, supported, and in some cases (like Thatcher), nearly worshipped? And if the right-wing is doing a better job protecting and aiding women, as is evidenced by their obvious allowance of women in to prestigious positions, then why should I care that you huff, and puff, and overexhillarate yourself and move the furniture to try to help them when you're not achieving anything!

That's right.

Leftists believe in the value of freedom, equality, and justice.

I don't believe there are very many leftists who would support murder, theft, and rape, and likewise, I don't believe there are many leftists who would support rich people with strange tastes buying the rights to eat homeless peoples bodies when they die. And yet, there is a group of people who believe that abortion is equivalent to murder and homosexuality is equivalent to the second point and you want me to honestly believe that they don't value freedom, equality, and justice?

Rightists believe in the value of preserving the oppressive cultural status quo at the expense of all three, at least if it's been so decreed by an imaginary dictator in the sky.

Just wait. A few points down you will prove my point.

The relevant value there is not "keeping things the same", it's protecting the environment. Which is a worthy aim regardless of your view regarding cultural change.

Is it? I really don't see how digging up a yard and virtually injecting it with motor oil from construction equipment to remove less then a gallon of heating oil is good for the environment, and I really don't see how opposing the two good sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases or sulfates (hydro and nuclear) is good for the environment. And I really don't see how doing everything possible to drive commerce out of the cities and in to the countryside with the most complicated series of regulatons possible to devise is good for the environment.

That's disingenuous. If this "matter of definitions" is connected to traditional cultural definitions, of course it's reactionary politics.

Not neccesarilly. You have to define it somehow, and, if you define it as one or define it as another, you'll hold certain views as a result. I agree it's a destructive definition, but if you believe somethings murder but are willing to bargain down to a lower punishment for it or allow it under extreme conditions, internally, that's very reasonable.

Yeah, so can I. Only I don't think "fags are yucky" and "empowered women make me feel insecure" serve as very good excuses.

The question is not what's moral or what's right. The question is what is. What are these problems made of? What kind of thoughts are going through their minds? Why do they believe what they believe? Frankly, I agree with you on the morality of their stance, but you're not seeing them as what they are. And they are not the Taliban. You're stereotyping them and forcing your own image upon them to have a boogeyman to blame and poke at and scream at, not a real human being to consider, and as such have brought yourself down to their level.

Another straw man. The objection is not to "watching movies" or "wearing certain kinds of clothes" as such. The objection is to the way global capitalism takes choice away.

How? Why?

Any given person may still have the individual choice to refrain from buying a given good. But people as a society lack the collective choice to decide not to have the global capitalist market dictate to them which choices are on offer. Cultural preservation is not a good in itself... but when economic and cultural change occur as the result of external forces, and not as a consequence of the self-determination of the relevant people, that's a problem.

Any given person may also start a business, and if there is a product that people want there will be demand for it, and if there's demand for it he should have no trouble getting investment capital. And with that investment capital you can manufacture what you need to continue your way of life. However, banning tribes from using modern technology, as was practice in the 1960's, is not the way to do it.

Red herring. Protecting the environment is a separate issue entirely, and one where we should (we must) impose upon those who will not comply.

And here's where you prove my point. You can SAY all you want that it is something "we must" impose upon others, but you know what, that is the exact same line the pro-lifers and the homohphobes and the cultural determinists and the whole lot of them will say for their own reasons, and you know what, in your head, your right, just like they are right, in their head, but it doesn't change the fact that 1) those cars comprise a tiny percentage of the CO2 pie chart, 2) the busses in Seattle are usually late and sometimes never come, and 3) for the cost of all this crap we could have America converted to a CO2free power grid, even with the more expensive electric technologies. May I remind you that one minor light rail line in Seattle covering a tiny percentage of the city for a city that isn't even that big cost $1.3 Billion.

It's just like how the anti-abortion crew will say that abortion is an abberration, is murder, is genocide against black people, shouldn't be allowed anywhere, is a reason for war, but 1) there are occasions where a woman might need an abortion, 2) How the hell would you know you've never been in that position anyways, and 3) the abortion ban didn't work in the 1950's, what makes you think it'll work now?

Oh, the assurances of a politically-motivated critic! How trustworthy.


And you're not politically motivated?

Prove it. And what does it mean to say that "the tribes themselves" have supported it? Certain representatives of the tribes, that may or may not represent the will of the tribe as a whole?

The most famous case is the Makah tribe, which wanted to revive their ancient tradition of whaling but was told that they couldn't for environmental reasons. Of course, in this case it was wishing to revive an ancient tradition rather then starting new development, but the logic either way is much the same. Fear, fear, fear:

Makah Whaling Fight (http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5301)

A much better example, also against the Makah and a series of Pacific Northwest tribes is a federal law on the books in the 1960's that said that tribal fishermen could only use technology available to them before the white man came when fishing in thier tribal fishing grounds. This caused quite a bit of a problem, as nets were not acknowledged to be something they had before the white man arrived, though when the Ozette site was unearthed, ancient Makah nets 600 years old were recovered from the mud, thus proving that they indeed had said technology. Still, the point stands that this law should never have been on the books in the first place.

I'm not convinced that people like this exist in substantial numbers at all, let alone a "small majority"... and unlike you I'm actually a leftist, and talk to and associate with other leftists. :rolleyes:

I don't know. Maybe Seattle and Georgia liberals are different. As for not associating with leftists, I was a Seattle resident for 19 years and am currently a resident of inner city Atlanta so you need not worry about that.

And here's where you prove my point. You can SAY all you want that it is something "we must" impose upon others, but you know what, that is the exact same line the pro-lifers and the homohphobes and the cultural determinists and the whole lot of them will say for their own reasons, and you know what, in your head, your right, just like they are right, in their head...
There is a fundamental difference there though.

The reason someone might support an environmental policy involving coercion are practical, rather than moral (most of the time, anyways). The science seems to suggest that CO2 emissions are a significant obstacle to successfully managing climate change. Failing to curb them has very practical consequences for the economy, people's private property as well as so mundane things as the lives and livelihoods of millions in the developing world.

The "pro-life" argument is based entirely on morality. There are virtually no pro-lifers I've met who have tried to build an amoral argument against abortion.

So when you're talking about environmental policies, you're making decisions based on "correct or incorrect", while on things like gay marriage, you're talking about "right or wrong". There is only one ideology I know of which considers there to be a relationship between the two, and let's just say it's neither wide-spread nor particularly steady on its feet on that one.

Imposing the former isn't an issue in and for itself. There's a wide variety of moral thought that could justify implementing a policy that has objective benefits on aggregate, and indeed refusing to implement it would violate those moral codes which would have problems with implementing it. Imposing the latter on the other hand is an imposition of one code of morality (and one with an extraordinarily weak argument supporting it - and that might just make a bigger difference than I'm making it out to be right now) on people who don't follow it. The standard that you're imposing is subjective - there is no meaningful objective argument that it is better to outlaw abortion or gay marriage.

My point is that Islamic Rightists DON'T believe in personal responsibillity

Sure they do. That's one of the reasons they're so keen on draconian punishments for crimes.

If it's opposed by the right, why are strong female politicians being elected, supported, and in some cases (like Thatcher), nearly worshipped?

Because distant woman rulers, somewhat strangely I'll admit, have never been much of a threat to sexist society as a whole.

Hell, plenty of very sexist societies have had queens.

And if the right-wing is doing a better job protecting and aiding women, as is evidenced by their obvious allowance of women in to prestigious positions,

No, it isn't "evidenced" by that at all.

And yet, there is a group of people who believe that abortion is equivalent to murder and homosexuality is equivalent to the second point and you want me to honestly believe that they don't value freedom, equality, and justice?

Actually, we were talking about homophobia, not abortion.

And, yes, if you are so bigoted as to draw an equivalence between homosexuality and any of the things you mentioned, and from that equivalence conclude that gays ought not to enjoy full equality, your views are incompatible with freedom, equality, and justice.

If I believe that Black people can be owned, and thus that emancipation was a grievous and unjustifiable theft from the plantation owners, the fact that most people are against theft doesn't make my view any less racist.

Is it? I really don't see how digging up a yard and virtually injecting it with motor oil from construction equipment to remove less then a gallon of heating oil is good for the environment,

Look, I'm pretty sure there's more to this than you're telling, but obviously I can't prove it. Certainly it works no better as an example of preserving the status quo than as an example of environmental preservation.

I really don't see how opposing the two good sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases or sulfates (hydro and nuclear) is good for the environment.

Yes, you do. You're just being disingenuous.

Now, we may conclude that the potential environmental costs of hydro and nuclear energy are less than the potential costs of the alternatives... and plenty of leftists have. But it's not a priori absurd to argue the opposite.

And I really don't see how doing everything possible to drive commerce out of the cities and in to the countryside with the most complicated series of regulatons possible to devise is good for the environment.

No, but that obviously isn't the point of the regulations.

Not neccesarilly. You have to define it somehow

Right, but most people against abortion rights have no coherent, consistent defense of their position on these grounds.

The real question, of course, is not life but personhood. If they actually believed that things like a developing brain and a beating heart were indicative of personhood, they would embrace an animal rights position that would make PETA at its most radical look centrist. But instead of thinking through these questions rationally, they tend to embrace preconceptions about life, personhood, and moral consideration from their religion... and yes, that's a reactionary approach.

You're stereotyping them and forcing your own image upon them to have a boogeyman to blame and poke at and scream at, not a real human being to consider, and as such have brought yourself down to their level.

Yet somehow you still haven't managed to reasonably explain how I'm wrong.

Any given person may also start a business, and if there is a product that people want there will be demand for it, and if there's demand for it he should have no trouble getting investment capital.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

For starters, the fact that people want something does not mean that there will be demand for it, and conversely, the fact that people do not want something does not mean that there won't be demand for it. For one, more important than the particular products are the way of life the products embody, and while people may support maintaining that way of life (and may be willing to pay the price for it if they're sure they'll actually get that result), such maintenance is a public good: even if only other people are paying the (probably higher) price for the products that maintain it, that way of life is still maintained, and if you pay the higher price and no one else does, your contribution is worthless. So to each individual, the reasons for their personal contribution aren't compelling... even if the objective ultimately is.

That's a classic collective action problem, and what it means is that on the level of "individual choice" the freedom people would express collectively--to maintain that way of life--is lost.

That's before we get into the other innumerable problems with the reasoning you're using--the assumption that any given start-up company can challenge large and wealthy corporations, for instance.

And here's where you prove my point. You can SAY all you want that it is something "we must" impose upon others, but you know what, that is the exact same line the pro-lifers and the homohphobes and the cultural determinists and the whole lot of them will say for their own reasons,

Yes, maybe, but every sane person knows that sometimes we need to impose things and sometimes we don't. The question is how strong the arguments behind the policy advocated are.

Obviously the specific merits of a particular policy regarding the environment can be debated, but the case for admission of environmental concerns broadly speaking into the framework of "things we should impose" is obvious and compelling: harming the environment harms other people, and thus is necessarily a public concern for public regulation.

but it doesn't change the fact that 1) those cars comprise a tiny percentage of the CO2 pie chart,

That's irrelevant; everything viewed in isolation comprises a "tiny percentage of the CO2 pie chart."

2) the busses in Seattle are usually late and sometimes never come,

Then fix that. Maybe if Seattle residents had to use the buses they'd be more keen to.

It's just like how the anti-abortion crew will say that abortion is an abberration, is murder, is genocide against black people, shouldn't be allowed anywhere, is a reason for war

Yes, and if they were right about fetal personhood they'd be right about all the rest regardless of the considerations you mentioned.

And you're not politically motivated?

I'm not giving you "my assurances" that a given thing is true, without any argument or specific example.

The most famous case is the Makah tribe, which wanted to revive their ancient tradition of whaling but was told that they couldn't for environmental reasons.

"there have been many cases where the left has "mindlessly" opposed development on the grounds of interfering with tribal behavior"

"but was told that they couldn't for environmental reasons."

Hmm... shift the goalposts, much?

Still, the point stands that this law should never have been on the books in the first place.

Again, what was their basis?

The permission for tribal hunting and whaling is exclusive; it's an exception to the rule that actually happens to exist for the reasons you think are so awful (cultural preservation--though this time in accordance with self-determination, and justified.) The right they have is restricted not to preserve their culture against their will (as you absurdly maintain) but because the reasons for the rule in the first place haven't magically gone away simply due to the ancestry of the relevant people.

Sure they do. That's one of the reasons they're so keen on draconian punishments for crimes.

If they believed in individual responsibillity, they would not enforce these rules by coddling their people against foreign media. The fact that they believe in barbaric punishments is irrelevant.

Because distant woman rulers, somewhat strangely I'll admit, have never been much of a threat to sexist society as a whole.

Hell, plenty of very sexist societies have had queens.

Queens aren't democratically elected. It's one thing to have a female ruler, it's another to vote for her.

No, it isn't "evidenced" by that at all.

If a professional woman getting to the highest echelons of the right-wing through her own grits and grind is not evidence that the right-wing accepts successful women, then I don't think you can possibly support the assumption that Left-wing women are successful either. I don't want to hear about your laws or what you're trying to do. I want RESULTS!

Actually, we were talking about homophobia, not abortion.

And, yes, if you are so bigoted as to draw an equivalence between homosexuality and any of the things you mentioned, and from that equivalence conclude that gays ought not to enjoy full equality, your views are incompatible with freedom, equality, and justice.

In this case they are very much connected, and if you are going to claim that a person that sees the world the way they do has views that are incompatible with "freedom, equality and justice," then in my view your views are incompatible with exactly those things as you do not care about my time or health unless it's spent in bed with my wang.

If I believe that Black people can be owned, and thus that emancipation was a grievous and unjustifiable theft from the plantation owners, the fact that most people are against theft doesn't make my view any less racist.

That is true, but it also doesn't make your view any less legalistic or built upon the value of personal property.

Look, I'm pretty sure there's more to this than you're telling, but obviously I can't prove it. Certainly it works no better as an example of preserving the status quo than as an example of environmental preservation.

You've never lived in the Pacific Northwest. And yes, it is preserving the status quo because as far as I can tell these freaks are nowhere nearly as strong in support of the envrironment as they are against economic growth.


Yes, you do. You're just being disingenuous.

Now, we may conclude that the potential environmental costs of hydro and nuclear energy are less than the potential costs of the alternatives... and plenty of leftists have. But it's not a priori absurd to argue the opposite.

Most of the arguments I've heard against nuclear power go along the line of "radiation is icky and weird..." As for hydro, you're taking the view that every hydro project is the same. While the Three Gorges project was stupid, I don't believe that the Hoover Dam caused any significant environmental damage, as it was placed in a high-walled desert canyon.

No, but that obviously isn't the point of the regulations.

If that isn't the point of the regulations, why are you making them at the city-level.

Right, but most people against abortion rights have no coherent, consistent defense of their position on these grounds.

I've met a few.

The real question, of course, is not life but personhood. If they actually believed that things like a developing brain and a beating heart were indicative of personhood, they would embrace an animal rights position that would make PETA at its most radical look centrist. But instead of thinking through these questions rationally, they tend to embrace preconceptions about life, personhood, and moral consideration from their religion... and yes, that's a reactionary approach.

That's your definition. That's not theirs'.

Yet somehow you still haven't managed to reasonably explain how I'm wrong.

Basically, the reason your wrong is you are tying together one unrelated idea to another unrelated idea based on your own fear and loathing. Yes, a person who believes in slavery is a racist fruitcake who stinks of asshole, but as of 1850 you could not deny that the same person you specified accepts, in his thinking, law and the value of property.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

For starters, the fact that people want something does not mean that there will be demand for it, and conversely, the fact that people do not want something does not mean that there won't be demand for it. For one, more important than the particular products are the way of life the products embody, and while people may support maintaining that way of life (and may be willing to pay the price for it if they're sure they'll actually get that result), such maintenance is a public good: even if only other people are paying the (probably higher) price for the products that maintain it, that way of life is still maintained, and if you pay the higher price and no one else does, your contribution is worthless. So to each individual, the reasons for their personal contribution aren't compelling... even if the objective ultimately is.

That's a classic collective action problem, and what it means is that on the level of "individual choice" the freedom people would express collectively--to maintain that way of life--is lost.

Who says you can't maintain a way of life in your own home. I've seen it done before. And lets say out of 10,000 people, 30% of them maintain it in their own home, that's still 3,000 customers. Now that's not enough for a huge manufacturer, but it is enough for a small family run business.

That's before we get into the other innumerable problems with the reasoning you're using--the assumption that any given start-up company can challenge large and wealthy corporations, for instance.

It's done all the time. The majority of America's economy is small-business. My mom works for a small auditing firm in Redmond that competes against bigger auditing firms quite nicely and is growing at a steady rate, having just in the last year moved in to a larger office space.

Big, powerful companies have to start somewhere you know. That's not to say it's not hard, but hey, if you're going to get a CEO's paycheck, you'd better earn it!

Yes, maybe, but every sane person knows that sometimes we need to impose things and sometimes we don't. The question is how strong the arguments behind the policy advocated are.

And whether your views support that argument. If I don't believe global warming is happening, as a very large portion of America's population does, then Seattle trying to force people on to busses is a horrible violation of their way of life.

Also, a considerable amount of environmental thought on this issue, it seems to me, comes from the hatred of the suburbs and suburban life. I remember reading in an english textbook called the "City Reader" that virtually every essay written about the suburbs has been negative, and most who hate the suburbs, I've noticed, blame the automobile.

Obviously the specific merits of a particular policy regarding the environment can be debated, but the case for admission of environmental concerns broadly speaking into the framework of "things we should impose" is obvious and compelling: harming the environment harms other people, and thus is necessarily a public concern for public regulation.

Sometimes, as in the case of putting mercury in to the air, but the thing I object to is how the left-wing always goes to the "things we should impose" list first. With global warming, it would be a hell of a lot easier and a hell of a lot cheaper to replace coal powers plant, which comprise, according to the EPA, 30% of total emissions from the burning of the coal alone plus 6% for the extraction, then to force people out of automobiles or drive everyones food costs through the roof with ethanol subsidies, but when was the last time you heard that discussed. Even if the replacements were solar and wind, I'm pretty sure it would cost less then billion dollar mass-transit projects in every American major city.

Read this very carefully (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/341514_transit29.html)

That's irrelevant; everything viewed in isolation comprises a "tiny percentage of the CO2 pie chart."

Not Coal Power. Coal Power comprises slightly more then automobiles in total and unlike automobiles can be 100% eliminated.

Then fix that. Maybe if Seattle residents had to use the buses they'd be more keen to.

Or they'd just move their businesses to the countryside, which is exactly what they're doing right now.

Yes, and if they were right about fetal personhood they'd be right about all the rest regardless of the considerations you mentioned.

And that's why I hate liberalism. You say you stand for life and liberty, but you don't, you just stand for utopian dreams, trying to force everything to be perfect, standardizing, forcing your way on everyone eles, just like the Soviets before you.

I'm not giving you "my assurances" that a given thing is true, without any argument or specific example.

Reread my reply.

"there have been many cases where the left has "mindlessly" opposed development on the grounds of interfering with tribal behavior"

"but was told that they couldn't for environmental reasons."

Hmm... shift the goalposts, much?

Sounds like you need to reread my argument. Development in production (including fishing) is development.

Again, what was their basis?

The permission for tribal hunting and whaling is exclusive; it's an exception to the rule that actually happens to exist for the reasons you think are so awful (cultural preservation--though this time in accordance with self-determination, and justified.) The right they have is restricted not to preserve their culture against their will (as you absurdly maintain) but because the reasons for the rule in the first place haven't magically gone away simply due to the ancestry of the relevant people.

I'm not talking about "tribal hunting and whaling." I'm talking about "tribal fishing," and to prohibit tribesmen from using modern technology is stupid and I believe mainly do to this mentality I am speaking of. I agree that with "tribal whaling" the ritual should be kept, as that is not something practical. Again, you need to reread my argument.

Neu Leonstein: While the problem may be practical, the approach taken by environmentalists is incredibly moralistic for many of the reasons I have given. Most of all, it is moralistic because avoiding any change to nature is considered the first priority, a highly moralistic stance as changes have already happened so only a worhsiplike belief in the humanless power of nature could back it. Now this said, there are some real reasons why a person would want to avoid such changes to nature, just as there are some reasons why a person might want to avoid abortion as a societal issue, but the approach itself is hardly practical.