In this Tom Friedman op-ed, How the G.O.P. Goes Green, he describes how Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is now supporting a carbon tax! Yup, a Republican with a capital R wants to jump over cap-and-trade and go to direct pricing of carbon. I think that's a great position, but then I read why he's supporting this, "politics, jobs and legacy".
"‘I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.’"
So he can still debate climate science, suggesting it might be completely wrong, but if college students believe it we should support it, because otherwise we'll lose elections. I guess there's one thing to be representing your constituents, but wouldn't it be nice if elected officials would do something because it's right?
And what's with the brainwashed line? Those under 30 haven't yet been brainwashed? By who? If they "believe" in climate change and they haven't been brainwashed, does that mean those that don't "believe" in climate change have been brainwashed?
Still, a carbon tax would be much better than cap-and-trade (it's like getting a single payer health care system instead of a mandated private insurance model). If Graham is willing to go there, we should just nod our heads and get there.
6 comments:
A broken watch is correct twice a day.
Take it and run.
If Graham is sincere, then he is only taking the long term view in terms of saving the Repubs as a national party in 20 years.
A most remarkable admission acutally, even if he cringes as he does it.
Howard, I think you misread Graham's quote, he said "They are not brainwashed" (italics mine).
Also, his quote "You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change" strikes me as, mmmm, reasonable, and - dare I say - consistent with the scientific method as I understand it.
I don't understand your self-described conflict - Graham is espousing a position you agree with, and - from the quotes in the article - supporting it for sound and legitimate reasons. Is your sole reason for being conflicted is that you find yourself agreeing with a Republican?
No I didn't misread it. It's why he feels the need to say they aren't brainwashed that says a lot about the 'climate' of the debate. He's saying Republican's shouldn't belittle climate change supporters and he's right. But since so many Republican's do belittle such people for that position, isn't that pretty damning?
"but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people." He's not saying calling climate change a hoax is incorrect because it's real, he's saying it's politically risky.
Yes, you can have a legitimate debate about climate change science. Scientists do it all the time. But in the political context, I take a "debate about climate science" to be between whether global warming is happening or not happening or whether it's man-made or not. That's the "science debate" that's happening in the political circle and I don't think that's legitimate. Yes there are two sides but it's 99-1 (and this is what the media continually misrepresents).
I take the article to mean that Graham is supporting a carbon tax because young people support it and he wants the GOP to grow its base and not die out. At no point is he saying he believes global warming is a real problem that could threaten civilization (in fact he's saying you can debate it). He's saying that for a political reason he should support the issue.
My conflict is not that I find myself agreeing with a Republican, my conflict is that I find myself agreeing with the position of someone for different reasons and I think his reasons are less than ideal (pure politics vs what's "right").
Getting to Yes teaches to stop once you've won their agreement on the position. I always found that a little difficult because I wanted to achieve consensus on the reasons too. In math and science it's not just the result that has to be right, but the supporting work that got you there.
So you are conflicted not because you disagree what he is proposing - you also think carbon tax is a good idea, and not because of his reasons for supporting it.
You say you are conflicted because his reasons aren't the same as yours. Further, you aren't actually addressing his reasons at all or even disagreeing with Graham actually said - your complaint is about "the media" and other people in his party disagreeing with your own reasons. Several times in your comment you say "I take this to mean X" when X isn't being said at all.
I don't know all the background here but just based on the article and quotes therein, Graham is espousing a position I agree with for sound and legitimate reasons; further he is bucking the thinking of many of his own party *and* providing a rationale for people who otherwise would not support this position to do so. I thought this was how "good" politics was supposed to work.
It's the difference between saying "you shouldn't murder people because it's the right thing to do" and "you shouldn't murder people because you might get caught doing it, and jail is really awful".
"Several times in your comment you say "I take this to mean X" when X isn't being said at all. " I disagree with that characterization. I think in those cases, X is what Graham is saying.
But yes, Graham taking the position and finding away to bring other Republicans into it would be a good thing.
Post a Comment