You Will Dream What We Tell You To Dream

Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker gave an impassioned defense of the so-called Green New Deal a few days ago, in which he mocked skeptics by pointing out that America has always been about “doing the impossible.” He says “we need to be bold again in America. We have to have dreams that push the bounds of human potential.”

Let’s be clear. The so-called Green New Deal is calling for a “mobilization on the scale of World War II and the Marshall Plan.” That’s what its supporters are saying, not its critics.

That’s bold, but it isn’t about having “dreams.” It’s about having ONE dream, and that dream isn’t yours, or mine. It’s the dream of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her coterie of profoundly arrogant, profoundly ignorant, profoundly irresponsible political hacks. It’s the dream of progressive Democrats.

In the Democrats’ new America, there is no place for your dreams. You’ll be too busy struggling to achieve theirs. Peasant.

In Defense of Man-Bashing

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds links to a piece by Lisa De Pasquale entitled Why the Anti-Men ‘Galentine’s Day’ is Nothing to Celebrate. According to Ms. Pasquale, this recently invented February 13th holiday (another sitcom-inspired creation) has, at least in some circles, a decidedly anti-male aspect to it.

I understand her objection: men do come in for a lot of criticism lately, and young men — grade school boys in particular — are suffering from increasingly unhinged biases and hostility.

But I’m generally not very sympathetic to complaints about the mistreatment of men. We are, by our very natures, tougher than women, physically and emotionally stronger and less sensitive, less vulnerable. This is one of the reasons it’s so great to be a man, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. Yes, I know men have a few legitimate complaints, mostly having to do with a lack of due process. But it’s still easier, safer, and just more fun to be a guy than a gal, so I don’t care to hear people whine about anti-male discrimination. (I do, on the other hand, feel a bit sorry for the little boys in the school yard who have to put up with misguided adult re-education efforts.)

Frankly, I think it’s kind of cute when women get together and pile on men and make fun of us. It’s like watching feisty kittens fight each other. I say, let them enjoy their sisterly solidarity.

This half-serious, casually anti-male feminism has a silver lining. These ladies, with their “The Future is Female” (and they’re half right) tee-shirts and their “male tears” mugs, are acknowledging that men and women are different. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but, after half a century of feminism’s relentless efforts to redefine women as men — first by jettisoning the bra, and ultimately by eliminating the act of motherhood itself — it’s nice to hear women talking about men as something inherently unlike themselves.

Because they’re right: men and women are different. And women, even when then they’re being feisty and cutely cantankerous, are adorable.

The Green MacGuffin

The British screenwriter Angus MacPhail is credited with coining the term “MacGuffin,” though it is usually attributed to Alfred Hitchcock. In drama, the MacGuffin is anything the pursuit of which serves to drive the plot forward. The MacGuffin may not itself be of any intrinsic interest; what is important is that the protagonists of the story are desperately seeking to acquire it.

In House Resolution 109 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal, the environment — the “Green” bit — is the MacGuffin. Though the proposed legislation is ostensibly aimed at saving the planet from the looming carbon apocalypse, that really isn’t the point of this bill. Rather, climate change is simply the excuse used to justify broad and deep changes to our economy, and drastic restrictions of our choices, prosperity, and freedom. It is a truly fascistic resolution masquerading as a noble pursuit of clean water and blue skies.

It’s also a very dishonest bit of work. It begins with a recitation of falsehoods about increased severe weather events, and a claim of anthropogenic global warming that is not supported by evidence. It then trots out the ludicrously tenuous projections of economic impact four score years from now, and cites them as a justification for a truly draconian forced transformation of the economy.

The environment is really not what the resolution is about. All the talk of “renewable” and “Green” and “clean” this and that is simply the MacGuffin intended to move this ugly bit of central planning forward. What the resolution is really about is social justice, government control, and socialism.

That’s why it spends so much time talking about “indigenous peoples” and “communities of color,” and why it invokes the common — but not environment-related — leftist tropes of income inequality and racial/gender divides.

That’s why it promises to (all bold text taken verbatim from the resolution):

promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities ….

Maybe those are noble goals (though I actually think they’re mostly victim-baiting and grievance-mongering), but they aren’t environmental goals. They’re simply more of the left’s redistributive, identity-group social engineering.

What else does it offer? Free education:

providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States ….

Union jobs:

high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages

Guaranteed wages, benefits, vacations, and retirement for everyone:

a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

More stuff for unions (because we love our unions):

strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain

More business regulation and micro-management:

strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors

A big nod to the American Indian community:

obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples

And providing — that’s the word it uses — every American with:

high-quality health care

housing

economic security

food

and access to nature.

Got it? This supposed “environmental” legislation would: guarantee you a house, a job, food, a college education, and health care; strengthen unions; and provide reparations and special advantages to all sorts of “aggrieved” groups including Native Americans, the young, the handicapped, women, and minorities.

Why don’t they simply call it the Turn America into Venezuela Proposal? Because that wouldn’t sell (and, let’s be honest, because they’re too foolish to appreciate that that’s where this would go). So instead they wrap it in a dishonest claim of imminent global catastrophe, and use that as the justification for calling for de facto state control of industry and commerce, education and health care, our jobs and our homes and our lives.

The new fascists are cute and perky and full of themselves, but they’re still fascists.

Conservatives: Unto the Breach!

It’s nice to imagine that the typical progressive has one issue about which he or she is passionate, one issue and one specific, clearly defined objective. If that were the case, we could discuss the merits of pursuing that objective. We could talk about the likely costs and the likely benefits, and maybe even reach some kind of understanding. Failing that, we could at least advocate for or against the progressive’s policy proposals in a thoughtful way.

But progressivism isn’t simply a response to the realization that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. It’s a perspective, an approach to living, an optimism about what could be. And make no mistake: however disenchanted progressives may be with the status quo, however convinced they may be that the current situation is intolerable and unjust, progressives are nonetheless optimists. They believe that the world, and the people in it, can be made better — endlessly better — and they fearlessly embrace change in pursuit of a hazy, undefinable and distant perfection.

They’re right: the world can be made better — endlessly better. An honest conservative should acknowledge that: the world is not as good as it can be, we are not as good as we can be. There is, and always will be, room for improvement, and that improvement will only come about through change. Conservatives and progressives should agree on this point: whether it is our temperament to optimistically embrace change or to pessimistically distrust it, some change is necessary and good.

Unfortunately, some change is unnecessary and bad. Some change is truly horrible: look to the starvation in oil-rich Venezuela for an example of that.

The reality is that neither pure conservatism nor pure progressivism works, in the sense of moving the human race ahead and making the world a better place. Progressivism only works if there is not much of it, just as conservatism only works if it is imperfect and, at least occasionally, amenable to progressive persuasion.

Everything is connected. We live and interact within a complex web of competing and cooperating interests, abilities, values, and goals. No one can grasp the complexity, the boundless detail, of our society, our economy, our culture. And yet it works: we coexist, get along with each other, and have created an enormous, historically unprecedented prosperity for an historically unprecedented number of people.

This is true because the web “understands” what we can not — because the whole is smarter than any of its parts. Over time, it has weeded out ideas that don’t work, so that what is left, however imperfect, works well enough to give us all we have.

So here’s where the conservative and the progressive differ, and also why the conservative is, in general, more likely right than the progressive.

Conservatives don’t understand how the world works. They just know that they don’t want to change it, because change is scary and fraught with danger, and what we have now works pretty well.

Progressives don’t understand how the world works either. They just know that they want to change it, some small part of it. The problem is that everything is connected, and that that small change will ripple outward and change other aspects of the society, economy, culture — change them in ways the progressive can’t anticipate, because no one is that smart.

This has always been true: change has always brought unintended consequences. What is different, today, is that there are a lot of progressives, and they have a lot of leverage now, in our media-driven monoculture filled with people ignorant of history and unmindful of complexity and, most importantly, embarrassed to be thought of as old-fashioned or unenlightened.

So when Rep. Ocasio-Cortez proposes something as deeply, profoundly, comprehensively, and objectively absurd as the Green New Deal, people who should know better — prominent, respected Democrats — jump on board, when instead they should be taking the child aside and explaining to her that being elected doesn’t make the foolish wise, and certainly not in her case.

Pick your bizarre and unworkable excess: imaginary human sexes beyond male and female, abortion until the day of birth, the elimination of cars and planes and fossil fuels, a centrally-planned economy that doesn’t descend into tyranny and poverty, a nation without borders, an economy crippled by the fear of climate change a hundred years from now for which no evidence exists today. In a culture with a sensible balance of conservative and progressive voices, all of these would be met with skepticism, and would have to fight to gain traction.

Progressive ideas will still fail, as often as and for the same reasons that they always have: because they change a functioning world in ways no one expected or intended. What’s different now is that the safety net of conservatism has been weakened, and more ideas — good and bad, but mostly bad because most ideas are bad — are going to slip through, and are going to have to be weeded out by painful experience rather than preemptively by natural conservative skepticism.

It would be good for conservatives to begin taking pride in their conservatism, and seeing their skepticism as a necessary and valuable contribution to defending a successful culture. We have built something good, and we should be proud to be its champions and protectors. We can’t expect progressives to surrender their optimism and hubris, nor to gain the wisdom that comes from a sensible humility. It’s our job to rein them in; it has always been our job.

Progressives are doing what they’ve always done. Conservatives have to get back to doing their job, and doing it better. So, fellow conservatives, stick your neck out and dig your feet in, be bold in your skepticism, stop going along with what you believe is nonsensical, and be the defender of what has been shown to be good.

Desperation: Slavery and Abortion

As I understand it, a major concern in the slave-owning South in the years leading up to the Civil War was that newly admitted territories would enter the union as slave-free states, thus diminishing the percentage of the nation that supported, and that was supported by, slavery. The Republican party, which was formed at least in part to advocate for slave-free territories and new states, and the election of its first President precipitated a desperate move on the part of the South to separate itself from what promised to be a nation dominated by free states and increasingly critical of the remaining slave states.

I wonder if the current excesses of the pro-abortion left, the swing-for-the-fences mindset that seems to have gripped the Democratic Party and its most progressive members, is an expression of a similar desperation. The left routinely portrays America as a reactionary country on the verge of theocracy, this despite the left’s impressive record over the past half-century of achieving dramatic social transformation. While I think this portrayal is absurd, I also suspect it’s sincere, and that many on the left believe we are one Ginsburg away from rolling America back to the dark ages of, say, 1958.

I’ve marveled in recent days at the sheer chutzpah of radically pro-abortion progressives calling for abortion-until-birth, and even managing to get it passed in my state and looming in others. I wondered what inspired their confidence. Now I think that perhaps it isn’t confidence at all, but a fear that the future is unlikely to be kind to abortion — that, even as abortion law remains outrageously liberal, the public view on abortion, particularly among the young, is growing more conservative: that abortion’s appeal has peaked, and may soon be on the wane.

If that’s their thinking, I do think that the current strategy will backfire, and will actually accelerate public opprobrium of abortion.

Where Do You Keep YOUR Crazies?

The political spectrum runs the gamut from crazy-on-the-left to crazy-on-the-right, but most of us are somewhere between those extremes. Most human qualities are distributed on something resembling a bell curve, fat in the middle and tapering to points at each side. Political views are no exception: most of us, Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative or liberal, are closer to the middle than to either end.

It’s easy to buy into a caricature of the great American divide, an exaggerated portrayal that casts one or both sides as extremists who subscribe to the views of the tiny little fringe down at either end of the opinion curve. This is hardly surprising: whether you’re selling advertising (the press, Hollywood), trying to claim the virtuous high ground (Hollywood, politicians), or trying to push your preferred policy (politicians, advocates), it’s useful to portray your opponent as an idiot or a monster — in short, as an extremist.

Pick your topic. Abortion? One extreme would ban it completely; another would allow it right up to the moment of birth — or, possibly, just a little bit longer. The environment? One extreme wants to outlaw private transportation and impose astronomical energy costs on the nation; another would… well, I’m not exactly sure what an environmental extremist on the other end looks like, but I’m sure there are a few of them out there.

On immigration, one extreme wants to expel every illegal alien from the country and stop immigration entirely; the other wants to abolish ICE and throw open the borders. The economy? At one extreme, people call for outright socialism, a centrally planned and managed economy, and the de facto abolition of markets; at another extreme, radical anarcho-capitalists want to get rid of government and laws, keeping only the free market.

Sex? One extreme maintains that all men are rapists and all sex is rape; another, that women should have legal rights inferior to those of men. Race? One extreme says that America is systematically targeting black people for destruction, and that blacks and whites should each have their own nation; another extreme says that non-whites are inferior to whites — and that blacks and whites should each have their own nation. (Sometimes supposedly opposite extremes resemble each other more than one might expect.)

Etc., etc.

The vast majority of us are reasonably sane, and reject the extremes. We aren’t caricatures. We’re normal people living normal lives, seeking sensible compromises, getting along with people who don’t agree with us about some things but who are, nonetheless, still decent and sensible people. Most of us don’t know many people at the extremes, though we hear about them all the time on television and in social media. This is true whether we tend to think of ourselves as right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

But here’s an odd thing. It’s hard to find respected voices on the right calling for crazy things. People on the right don’t like craziness, even when it’s coming from their own side. But it’s fairly easy to find respected voices on the left calling for things that sound nutty to most of us: abortion-until-birth (NY, Virginia, Vermont, etc.), black/white separatism (Black Lives Matter, Nation of Islam), socialism (Bernie, Acasio-Cortez, etc.), radical environmentalism, radical views about sexuality and identity, open borders, etc.

I won’t deny that there are crazy people on the right. But folks on the right try to keep them tucked away, out of sight. We don’t want to hear from them any more than the left does, and we sure don’t want them thinking they represent us. Because they don’t.

I don’t know why my friends on the left put up with the prominent extremists who claim to represent them. Partly I suspect it’s because our culture tilts left, and so left-wing extremism doesn’t stand out quite as much as right-wing extremism does: we’re all a little bit accustomed to nutty leftists. But partly, I’m pretty sure, it’s because leftist extremism is just more exciting, just feels better. Socialism sounds cool, never mind that it makes people poor and corrupt and mean and hungry. It sounds kind of romantic, in spite of its dismal record in the real world. And any claim of victimhood is going to be appealing, because we all respond to injustice, real and imagined.

So I guess it’s understandable why people who lean left tolerate prominent crazy people speaking on their behalf. But it’s a mistake: almost no one wants to live in the world the extremists would create. It would be good for all of us if their supporters would let the extremists know that crazy isn’t on the menu, and that they have to dial it back. Otherwise, there’s a good chance that the nuttiest people are going to be calling the tunes for the rest of us.