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
Hmmm, a relation broken up by politics. I have a story to tell.
Back this March, I had despaired of ever finding a woman to share my life. But I decided to give it one more try. I signed on one of those on-line dating services. One of the questions they asked was "Who has most influenced you in your life?"
I thought about it a while and put down "Thomas Sowell." Sowell's books and columns helped convince me to give up my leftism and adopt a more mature approach to the world. It didn't just affect my politics. It changed the way I looked at my job and my relations with my family.
I had no idea how women would react to that. Some women who liked the fact that I did creative writing were immediately turned off when they found out I was a conservative. But there was this one very intelligent wonderful conservative woman who answered the ad. She very much likes the ideas of Thomas Sowell. That's just one of many great things about her.
So, I'll be getting married in May. I wonder if I should send Sowell a thank-you card.
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."
I stand in awe...
You should not.
You sould send him a wedding invitation, along with the story you just told us.
Who knows? He might even show up!
Congratulations! To a smart man and his obviously smart soon-to-be wife.
And yes, I think you should send Sowell a thank-you card.
:-) But he opened with that quote in a column about one year ago.
Sorry for the confusion.
:-)
Smartest Man In America Alert (IMHO).
Believe it or not, Sowell used to be a Marxist.
If you like this, read his "Vision of the Anointed".
ALthought Williams is highly entertaining, I recommend that you get Sowell's "Basic Economics" and "Applied Economics"
Nary a chart or graph in either book, and they're eminently readable.
...good read.
If she was cute, I could overlook the environmentalism. Yes, I'm shallow.
I would argue that this applies to most (not all, but most) liberals that I know. I've stopped debating for many of the same reasons that you have - it's no fun to debate with someone when you have a loaded weapon and the other guy doesn't. "Bush is a idiot" is an inaccurate opinion, not a philosophy or platform, and certainly not a debating point.
I hope that the Democratic party eventually stops embracing these fringe elements. No good comes from one party being too powerful - think of the Republicans now, and the Democrats back in the 70s. I think that both parties have valid ideas, and the Dems will never challenge the Republicans as long as they promote wild-eyed fanatics like AirAmerica as 'representative of their party'. They no more represent the 'common man', than lunatics like Eric Rudolph represent all Republicans.
Ping to the students
Sowell is a true intellectual, not a pandering rabble rouser; he writes from the truth, not towards coercive persuasion; he knows better than the reader that his words are meant for history, not revolution.
"The thing I like about Williams is his style of explanation in his use of everyday examples..."
The thing I like about Williams is the way he lords over his household and the gifts he buys for his wife! ;-)
I love that as an academic he refuses to obscure his ideas with self serving academic jargon. I imagine his clarity has unnerved many an intellectual opponent.
Ya got that right, at least from a lot of the Republican base.
But that does not explain all of it. Personally, I suspect a hidden agenda from some members of the lynch mob.
For instance, prior to this the Bush administration was in position to heavily influence selection of the next Republican presidential nominee. Weakening President Bush simultaneously opens the door to candidates who would find a strong President Bush an obstacle.
Likewise, this is a golden opportunity for some to "even the score". Politicians have enemies, most of whom will lie low when they perceive strength. But when they see weakness, the long knives come out and they extract revenge.
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.