Following the inauguration of the current White House occupant and the subsequent implementation of “progressive” policies, resulting in a cultural phenomenon known as the Tea Party, there’s been an explosion of political debate in the United States. This debate has taken place among and between Conservatives, “progressives” and moderates.
Since the spring of 2008, I’ve been priviledged to engage in many long discussions on a myriad of topics with a good sampling of the population who represent today’s widely ranging political philosophies.
There are many policy matters which are viewed by people from very different, often divisive perspectives. This writing is focused on two policies and the reasons why I believe that the best way for We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is to vote for Conservatives, not “progressives” or Libertarians.
“progressives” continue to promote the narrative of global warming, or to use the most recent and now more popular vernacular: climate change. The narrative is that planet earth is experiencing a warming climate due primarily to the emission of man-made “greenhouse gases”. The most often and specifically referenced gas is carbon dioxide.
According to Matt Rosenberg at Atmosphere Composition, the earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of Nitrogen and Oxygen. Together, the two comprise about 99% of the gas in the atmosphere. Here’s a listing of the key components of the atmosphere:
Nitrogen – 78.084%
Oxygen – 20.95%
Argon – 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide – 0.036%
Neon – 0.0018%
Helium – 0.0005%
Methane – 0.00017%
Hydrogen – 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide – 0.00003%
Ozone – 0.000004%
In addition, water vapor is variable but typically makes up about 1-4% of the atmosphere.
“progressives” would have the world’s population believe that fluctuations in a trace element of earth’s atmosphere (0.036%) caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal will result in such catastrophic events as the melting of earth’s polar ice caps and glaciers. This will lead to the flooding of coastal areas and the extinction of numerous species.
Meanwhile, Libertarians express the belief that America’s militaristic foreign policy is a major contributor to anti-American sentiment around the world. The chief proponents of this view are fond of quoting our Founding Father’s:
“…foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”–Thomas Jefferson
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little politial connection as possible…Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambitions, rivalship, interests, humor or caprice?”–George Washington
Based upon this philosophy, the Libertarian perspective is that America should immediately cease all foreign aid, withdraw our troops from around the world and enact large cuts in defense spending.
You might well ask: What do these two expressions of quite distinct policies have in common? A fair question.
In each instance, there’s an expression of admirable goals. Who doesn’t want to have cleaner air to breath, promote the general health of earth’s ecology or diminish our nation’s dependency on foreign energy? Who doesn’t see value in lowering the costs of defense spending, or reducing our entanglement in the affairs of other sovereign nations?
The achilles heel of each of these policy perspectives is the same. Both the reduction of America’s dependency on fossil fuels (especially those purchased from countries openly hostile to America) and ending America’s role as the world’s police force are long term strategic goals. Both require thoughtful, careful planning and execution if they’re to be ultimately successful.
A nation of over 300 million people, which currently derives less than 5 percent of its energy from “alternatives” such as solar, wind, tidal or organic, can’t expect to put an immediate end to the use of fossil fuels. This could quite possibly bring the nation’s already ailing economy to a grinding halt, resulting in a massive loss of business, leading to a dramatic decrease in already insufficient tax revenue and an extremely painful increase in unemployment. Is putting an end to the use of petroleum worth the accompanying reduction in the living standards and the overall prosperity of the nation? Is it worth the resulting ballooning of our national debt and further devaluation of our currency?
Simarly, an immediate withdrawal of American troops from around the glode, coupled with a dramatic decrease in defense spending will predictably lead to the simultaneous creation of multiple power vacuums in many dangerous regions of the world. Is the impulse to immediately return to a completely non-interventionist foreign policy worth the risk of leaving the world a less secure place for mankind to live? Is it worth the geopolitical expansion of America’s enemies?
What the nation needs to do now is elect fiscally responsible, Constitutional Conservatives who understand the need to make such dramatic policy changes in a thoughtful, strategic, incremental, implemental fashion.
It’s true that we need to make immediate corrections to many current policies. America stands at the precipice of economic, cultural and geopolitical disaster.
We do need to throw out the bath water. But we also need to make sure the baby doesn’t go with it.