Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Good news for marriage equality in MA and CA, bad news for fundies Previous entry: I have nothing to add to this

Environment presents cognitive dissonance

I’ve been noticing lately that more and more of the Wingnutteria is beginning to clue into the fact that there’s a serious contradiction between claiming to be all about “family values” and not valuing your very own children enough to want to leave them a planet to live on.  I saw this defensive column recently trying to grapple with the contradiction, and that’s riding on a wave of evangelicals who can’t stand the contradiction anymore and are overcoming their repulsion at the feminizing effects of caring about the environment to make sure their own virility trophies have an adulthood worth having of their own.  I mention it, because I think it’s the tension that caused Victor Davis Hanson’s head to explode recently, with this Corner posting

It is scary when Speaker Pelosi claims “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” or Al Gore barks about his utopian plan to shut down all generators of electricity except wind and solar within 10 years — or else: “The future of human civilization is at stake.”  Or Obama claims that at the “moment” of his nomination over Hillary (?) “The rise of the oceans began to slow.”  Call this ecobonics, geo-narcissism, or hokey science — or a variant strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome — but it is creepy nonetheless.


To answer Roy’s question about the racism of “ecobonics”, I suspect it was a ham-handed attempt to remind the audience that Obama is black, as if the NRO audience would ever forget. 

I’m telling you, though, it’s the “future of human civilization” thing that made him lose it.  Conservatives justify their very existence as preservers of civilization, and the ugly reality is that global warming puts human civilization in direct danger, meaning that they’re forced to decide between their stated values—-civilization, family—-and their real values, which are protecting the short term profits of the richest corporations in our country, even at the expense of family and civilization.  Well, that and protecting their fragile male egos from the taint of “feminine” qualities like caring about other people.  The contradictions are delicious, really.  So sure that the masculine and the feminine can be safely considered opposites, but then faced with the fact that the manly virtue of taking responsibility for your children’s future is impossible without being all girly and caring about the planet. 

The good news is that it’s becoming harder and harder for the mainstream media to do their job of papering over these contradictions and glorifying right wing ideas.  The MSM types try to take their cues from the Davis Hansons of the world, but that’s increasingly hard to do.  “Ecobonics”?  David Brooks and Maureen Dowd can’t put lipstick on that pig.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:30 PM • (17) Comments

If only that asshole’s head would literally explode. The world would be a better place.

Comment #1: Steve LaBonne  on  07/29  at  09:10 PM

*sigh*

Another yo-yo who considerably over-estimates his own competence, particularly in scientific matters.

Comment #2: gwangung  on  07/29  at  09:17 PM

Strom’s article was a miracle of illogic and unstated assumptions.

Just because you have more children and grandchildren (if that’s even the case) doesn’t mean you love your children and grandchildren more. That’s absurd. Sometimes it’s quite the opposite - a couple keeps on having more and more kids with no regard for how it affects their existing children.

As for why liberals talk about how going green can be good for the economy as well as the planet - it’s because we’re trying to make an argument that both liberals and conservatives should be able to appreciate. But obviously some of them can’t.

Now that he’s explained why he can never follow Al Gore’s lead on this - just exactly what does Strom suggest we do about pollution, global climate change, etc.? Deny them, despite the obvious evidence that we’re causing *some* damage, because the result of accepting them looks like socialism to him? That’s suicidal. Unfortunately, he’s willing to take the rest of us with him.

Comment #3: Panask  on  07/29  at  09:36 PM

Wasn’t there something in the news recently about somebody desecrating something that is held sacred by many people?

Comment #4: watercat  on  07/29  at  10:03 PM

I wonder if the discovery that “conservatism” means wasting as many resources as possible came about the same time that the right wing discovered that budget deficits were meaningless.

Of course, if you’re a Rapture nut or one of the other millennarian types, the only people who will get stuck with the mess you’re making are heathens, so it’s OK. Religious conservatism: the ultimate justification for “F—- you, jack, I’ve got mine.”

Comment #5: paul  on  07/29  at  10:14 PM

“It is scary when…”

I’m sure Victor Davis Hanson was arguing strenuously against the Cold War scare tactics which had such a terrible effect on those who grew up between the 50s and 80s.

Comment #6: Auguste  on  07/29  at  11:41 PM

Re: “ecobonics” - I think Ebonics is supposed to be a dog-whistle calling to mind the ghastly specter of “political correctness” in the ‘90s. (I can’t think of any specific examples, but interactions with conservative relatives have led me to believe that they still see Ebonics as an issue.) This would fit with the picture VDH is trying to paint of human-caused global warming as a “politically correct” idea that no one is allowed to dissent from.

That the term also reminds the audience of Obama’s blackness is, I’m sure, gravy for the author.

Comment #7: Kelly  on  07/30  at  01:27 AM

...geo-narcissism[...]or a variant strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome…

I like how he’s fighting “geo-narcissism” with narcissism-by-proxy. Apparently Bush is the center of the universe, and any act by a liberal, no mater how unrelated it may appear to be on the surface, is at base an attack on Dear Leader. Sure, you claim that you saved that busload of puppies and nuns because it was “the right thing to do”, but I know that you really did it to make the president and our troops look bad.

I’m on to you.

Comment #8: Sophist FCD  on  07/30  at  04:12 AM

This provides a great opportunity to make the Reich wing look like a set of whiners and naysayers. Whenever they complain that Gore’s program is impossible to implement, just raise your eyebrows and remark, “I didn’t realize anything was impossible for America!”

Comment #9: sunsin  on  07/30  at  04:38 AM

Unfortunately, the religious right has a different way of looking at environmental issues. It’s being taught from the pulpit in thousands of churches that trying to save the earth is evidence of a lack of faith in Jesus, that it’s attachment to “worldly things” instead of heaven.

I know this from experience. It goes along with the doctrine that Christians must support a large war in the middle east because that’s one of the conditions of the return of Christ. I wrote about my experience here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/161345/0294/103/112786

Frightening, isn’t it?

Comment #10: sfgary  on  07/30  at  07:40 AM

Unfortunately, the religious right has a different way of looking at environmental issues. It’s being taught from the pulpit in thousands of churches that trying to save the earth is evidence of a lack of faith in Jesus, that it’s attachment to “worldly things” instead of heaven.

I was just coming here to see if anyone had said that yet.
After all, we’re supposed to be getting (or SOME of us are supposed to be getting!) a new Earth, so anyone saying we need to save THIS one is lacking faith.
O ye of little sense.

Comment #11: annejumps  on  07/30  at  09:59 AM

Whenever they complain that Gore’s program is impossible to implement, just raise your eyebrows and remark, “I didn’t realize anything was impossible for America!”

Oh, I am sooo using that! Great framing!

Yes, many evangelicals do believe that there’s no need to protect this earth because they’ll inherit a new one, but there are a growing number, referenced by Amanda and others, who are adopting an ethos of “creation care”- as in, “God created it, we should respect and care for it.” Regardless of whether you believe in the first half of that sentence, I think progressives should be reaching out to those who agree with us on the second half.

Comment #12: erinelizabeth  on  07/30  at  11:15 AM

Yes, many evangelicals do believe that there’s no need to protect this earth because they’ll inherit a new one, but there are a growing number, referenced by Amanda and others, who are adopting an ethos of “creation care”- as in, “God created it, we should respect and care for it.” Regardless of whether you believe in the first half of that sentence, I think progressives should be reaching out to those who agree with us on the second half.

You could probably work the Parable of the Talents in there somewhere since that’s one of the fundies’ favorites. 

“God gave you this nice Earth and you trashed it.  Don’t you think he’s going to be kind of pissed that he made something lovely for you and you didn’t care enough to take care of it?”

Comment #13: Mnemosyne  on  07/30  at  11:53 AM

There’s also the original Genesis passage: which part of “replenish” don’t they understand?

Or is the part about stewardship just so old testament, while the neighboring parts about having dominion are just fine?

Comment #14: paul  on  07/30  at  01:16 PM

well, and then throw in the concept that many conservative Fundamentalists actually Welcome the End Times.  Not only do they welcome it, but feel it’s their duty to bring it about.
“Ah’m drivin mah Hummer for GAWD!!”

Comment #15: Carla  on  07/30  at  04:08 PM

This is one of the inherent flaws in believing in a magic sky daddy™, there is no such thing as limited resources because GOD will magically (or miraculously, pick what ever word you like) make more clean air, oil, coal, trees, unicorns, etc…

Comment #16: cynickal  on  07/30  at  05:20 PM

Victor Davis Hanson is supposedly a farmer. He makes much of this family history and the agrarian roots of America (going all the way back to ancient Greece).

It boggles the mind that a farmer would be so dismissive of environmental issues.

Or perhaps that isn’t so surprising, now that large-scale farms are run like factories, with short-term profits in mind, not the future of the land, and accordingly agribusiness owners and managers have historically regarded environmentalists as the enemy.

However, VDH took pride in being a small raisin farmer and taking a long view. I wouldn’t be surprised by now if he’s sold off the family farm or let the grapevines die off. Being a conservative pundit pays better.

Comment #17: anon  on  07/30  at  09:21 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.