the pieces:
- David Brooks in the Weekly Standard last August on [stereo]typical Republican-voting denizens of suburbia in the southwest, Patio Man and the Sprawl People (long but well written)
- April 13 Sac Bee, Patio Man gets religion about about taming sprawl and is voting with the liberals on this issue
- Thought-provoking letter in response in Bee yesterday by Hugh Bower of Sac:
Let's be honest: The "environmentalists" in "sprinkler cities" -- Elk Grove, Folsom and El Dorado Hills -- are nothing more than NIMBYs.
A true environmentalist is just as concerned about drilling for oil in Alaska (even if he or she never sees it) as he or she is about oak trees around Folsom Lake. Unfortunately, "sprawl people" are only concerned about protecting their immediate environment...
which sounds pretty damning.
- But now add Melanie Phillips as follows:
Values dismissed as conservative are actually universal: attachment, commitment to individuals and institutions, ties of duty, trust and fidelity...
and we get two ways to view the Republican anti-sprawlers' motivations:
either they're selfish ("they were there first and don't want uninvited intruders crowding their roadways, schools and neighborhoods") or they're exemplifying conservative values, by being loyal and dutiful and true and committed to their communities. And if these are bad things, does that mean that conservatism is bad?
This also points out the differences in "boundaries" between liberals and conservatives. The "true environmentalist" aka liberal? has no boundaries, is concerned all over the planet, thus goes around engaged in pesky do-gooding. But conversely, because they don't have boundaries "everything is sacred" (or at theoretically equally important whether within view or not), and so there's no Loyalty (because loyalty is about treating those people/things you're close to differently from those that you're not)
(Aside: NIMBY definition from SARS watch recently: "the inevitable reluctance of anyone to accept a point source of social problems near them")
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.