Conservatives are dumb, liberals are dumber

By Frosty Wooldridge

My colleague Canadian Tim Murray speaks often about the inconsistencies of liberals versus conservatives in the realm of environment, population and ecology.  

I spoke to him recently on the absurdities of the two paths of thought:

“American liberal commentators—especially comedians like Bill Maher—-do their best to re-enforce the stereotype of tea baggers as ignorant, illiterate, redneck rubes and “hillbillies”— as Maher often calls them,” said Murray. “Liberals, on the other hand, are cast as typically young, hip, well-educated sophisticates with a cosmopolitan outlook.”

“How ignorant did that sound?” said Murray. “Is there any part of that insightful statement that doesn’t ring painfully true? Now try this comment from the icon of American liberalism, film-maker Michael Moore, made to Larry King on CNN on July 27th. Moore declared that to protest Arizona’s “disgusting” immigration law, he would stipulate that his films not be shown in that state because “We are all immigrants, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants—-unless you are a Native American or if you are African-American, (and) you are either here originally or forced to be here. It’s a huge country, there is lots of room–have you ever driven across Kansas—it goes on forever….there is lots of room.” 

“That, in a nutshell, summarizes the ecological IQ of the typical American liberal,” said Murray.  “Neither Moore nor Maher nor any one of the Congressional liberals he promotes seems to understand that the concept of carrying capacity. It is not about how many people Kansas or the United States can contain but how many people it can sustain. Antarctica is also a big place with room for lots of people, but not many want to emigrate there. 

“Once upon a time even the environmental movement, before it too was hijacked and tamed by corporate donations, understood that if anything, the United States was over-populated, and that understanding was shared across the political spectrum.”

Nixon’s Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future stated that “We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of the economy does not depend upon it, nor does the vitality of business, nor the welfare of the average person.”

“While Nixon supported the conclusions of this report, and the National Security Memorandum 200 on population, the Democratic-controlled Congress did not. One hundred million people later, America is now paying a fatally heavy price for their ignorance, as the momentum of population growth quickens and the problem snowballs,” said Murray. “Yet to this day, “progressives” continue to claim a monopoly on environmental awareness. Maher, for one, is incredulous at the stupidity of conservatives who persist in their denial of global warming, but is oblivious to the ignorance of liberals who showcase their denial of overpopulation. One must ask, which calamity is more manifest? Which finds more scientific validation?

“If climate sceptics are paid by Big Oil “not to understand”, as Al Gore charges, do not the financial reports of the environmental NGOs and the donation disclosures of Democratic politicians make it clear that greens and liberals are paid by big corporations not to understand the connection between population growth and environmental degradation? The more relevant question is not whether man-made climate change is real or serious but why, if it is, it is regarded as the most urgent of threats. Could it be that acknowledgement of immigration-driven runaway population growth as the more immediate problem would chase away corporate benefactors?

“Could it be that by making atmospheric pollution almost the only metric of environmental damage worthy of attention, global solutions are elevated above the local and national project to contain growth? Is it science, or mercenary expediency that makes climate change the bogeyman of obsessive focus? Border control? How quaint, how parochial, how xenophobic, sneer the liberals. We can keeping on growing, as long as we change our behaviour, and invest in “green” solutions.

“There may not be many things that rank and file Tea Baggers say that would send you running to the dictionary, but one must not confuse syntax with intelligence. At least most of them understand that paying out $346 billion a year in corporate welfare is unsustainable. No, I don’t mean the corporate tax breaks that Bill Maher talks about, but the cost of social services provided to illegal immigrants whom cheap labour employers employ.

“If Maher’s punching bag, “Joe the Plumber”, is a dupe for voting for politicians who oppose progressive tax rates, then surely Maher and his ilk are dupes for supporting candidates who would have American taxpayers pick up the tab for hiring illegals to suppress the wages and displace the jobs of Americans. How stupid is that?

“American liberals are a nasty piece of work. Ignorance and hypocrisy in the guise of smug condescension.”

##

You may reach Tim Murray: http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com or http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com, said, “I came upon an orchestration, the environmental movement, and all the musicians were playing violins to the tune of “Overconsumption, overconsumption, overconsumption.” They refused to play any other tune or use any other instrument to compliment that narrow repertoire. Apparently some corporate donors were paying them to be a one-trick pony.