When I was campaigning for the 18th AD, people asked me about my stance on abortion all the time. They wanted to hear me say pro-choice or pro-life, because they bought into the idea that a person had to be one or the other, and that divisive camps are somehow helpful. I disagree. This was my answer on abortion: “I’m Catholic, and I believe life is precious at every stage. I’d like to see abortion rates come down every year …but I’d like that to happen through freedom of choice. I’d like to do such a good job of supporting women through their reproductive choices that abortion becomes a product that women no longer want to buy, but we don’t need to take it off the shelf to accomplish that.” By suggesting a free market solution vs. a mandated solution, I found that people who were pro-life and pro-choice could support my stance…and more importantly, they felt less need for a "pro-something" label, and more need to really engage in a freedom-based solution. They could see that while labels are convenient for those who need money, power, headlines, foot soldiers, and protesters – the fact is, those labels divide our country unnecessarily for the purposes of elevating righteous headline-grabbers, but do little to truly help the women caught in the middle of the battlefield.
I see the same thing happening with the arguments around global warming. Battle lines are being drawn between believers and non-believers, and a lot of money is being made and spent to promote one side over the other.
I’m going to suggest something radical…it doesn’t matter if you believe humans are causing global warming or not.
Remove that litmus test from the table, and what are you left with? A common goal to reduce wasteful practices, and preserve natural resources for future generations. People who believe humans are causing global warming want us to reduce our carbon footprint. People who do not believe humans are causing global warming would like to leave their children and grandchildren a clean, safe, healthy planet. Guess what? The means to both goals is the same. The work that would accomplish both goals is the same. And the end result if both sides got their way would be the same.
So what are we fighting for? There is too much common ground to fight over semantics. I say we boil this issue down to the Poor Richard’s Almanac version: Waste not, want not. If we all invest ourselves in that simple premise, and stop creating divisive camps and labels, we can work together to preserve our precious natural resources and protect the environment we leave our posterity.
I know that what I’m suggesting could take the wind out of the sails of those who profit from a good political fight, but for those interested in engaging as many people as possible in a respectful, motivating quest for true environmental progress, this may be the only way.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jill, I will try to respond at length to your post when I have a little more time. And we can talk about the life issue at length.
But on your main issue of global warming, the issue is when politicians are enacting coercive regulations on individuals and businesses in California, using as their excuse that humans are, they contend, a major contributing factor to climate change.
I agree that being smart about how we treat Planet Earth is a good idea, but the “War of Semantics” becomes very real, and very important because the radical left is using their belief of major human causes for ‘global warming’ to pass very real new laws that infringe on property rights.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Thank you, Jon, and I am looking forward to a more lengthy discussion very much. I think it’s an important one to have.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, and that is precisely why I think Republicans should engage in this issue in a positive way, and become the problem solvers we always are. Then all the left will have in their arsenal will be semantics…and we will have measurable success. What I’m suggesting is that Republicans not be concerned about labels, but be concerned about doing what is right without fear we’ll be lumped in with radical elements of the environmental movement.
My position is that we establish our own, conservative, fiscally responsible platform on environmental protection. We can do better than just be voices of opposition to the left’s attempts to use the environmental as a power play.
This is our issue, and the time is now for us to take leadership.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well said, Jill. Keep up the great work…you’re going to change the world!