After months of completely ignoring my Netflix account, I finally watched An Inconvenient Truth the other day.
A while ago, I wrote this post on the 2008 presidential race and global warming (yes, I should have made it two posts instead of awkwardly jamming two topics together).
The movie didn’t do much to change my views; I’m still mostly a believer in global warming. It was a well-made movie, and Gore proved his point admirably, but some of the criticisms I’ve seen still leave doubts in my mind.
(I have to say, I think the media have done a terrible job cutting through the controversy. I’m still not entirely sure what the educated consensus really is. )
Regardless, I still think it’s only prudent to err on the side of caution in terms of the environment.
This leads me to what I consider a great political irony, and a also sad commentary on how our society frequently values labels of substance.
- Republicans are “conservative.”
- Democrats are “liberal.”
At least, that’s what they say.
Yet,
- Republicans generally seem more skeptical about global warming.
- Democrats seem more “green.”
Fair enough.
But that doesn’t really mesh with their supposed “conservativism” and “liberalism,” does it?
The way I see it, “going green” is about as “conservative” as you can get.
Not only are you practicing “conservation,” but you are also erring on the side of caution, preparing for the worst, being proactive about the territorial integrity of the US, and essentially working to prevent certain changes in the traditional American lifestyle.
Futhermore, for a green movement to really take hold, legislation will almost certainly be neccessary. Whether it be in the form of a carbon tax, outlawing of plastic bags and incandescent bulbs, or whatever else, this sort of legislation restricts our freedom somewhat. In the short-run, it curtails our liberties. It is hardly “liberal.”
(Granted, as a social effort for our collective good, it does fit the Democratic/left platform, but only in that regard).
I can’t really fault either party for taking sides in this debate. As far as I can tell, Global Warming is indeed a valid political issue. Heck, I’ve taken a side myself.
But I find it ironic that the “liberal” party’s position is, to me, conservative, while the “conservative” party’s position is liberal.
I think this is largely symptomatic of the fact that the main parties don’t stand for all that much anymore; they exist mostly to oppose each other. It bothers me that this is the case, and it bothers me that the public doesn’t really call the parties out on it.
It also bothers me that the words ”liberal” and “conservative” are hurled about by politicians, pundits, and the public as slurs, rather than as simply adjectives.
Of course, I think that “conservative” values in the US are, historically and etymologically, liberal. But I suppose that’s a topic for a different day.
Filed under: Current Events, Life, Movies
Yay semantics!!! Y’know.. people like Jefferson were Enlightenment-era liberals because they believed in individual rights, reason over superstition and limited government. In other words, they were classical liberals. Something like what we’d call libertarians today. Although I think Jefferson would have advocated for seat-belts
Haha. In a way, it is semantics, but in a way, I don’t think it is.
I honestly don’t understand why the same people who favor a strong military (to defend the country/territory/American way-of-life from potential threats from other countries) don’t favor a proactive approach to the environment, which is also a potential threat to the territory and way-of-life. There seems to be a dichotomy in the way the GOP views potential threats.
Semantically, I’d like to replace the Democrats’ use of the word “liberal” with “social.” Of course, “socialist” seems to have stigma attached to it. But then again, “liberal” and “conservative” all seem to have a sort of stigma now, too. Oy.
I’m all about the Classical Liberal mindset, though. I think that’s still a bit similiar to the mindset of the modern European liberal.
AND I DO WEAR MY SEATBELT!
(I just don’t like being told I have to.)
I meant semantics in that the words liberal and conservative have evolving meanings.
Classical liberals are not like the 21st century European liberals- the latter are just socialists. Classical liberals = a lot like libertarians today.
Oh, ok! Yea, the meanings totally evolve.
I thought European Liberals were less socialist than some of the other parties, and a little more similiar to our libertarians (ie, free market, smaller gov’t). But I could be wrong.
(Don’t tell my old professors! lol)
But you’re def right that libertarians are a lot like classical liberals.