Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming orthodoxy, the world’s foremost hypocrite, Al Gore, informed anyone who still listens to him that my position is akin to racism. The wise course of action would be to ignore the rants of a man who desperately needs the world to remain fearful of carbon, the element on which all life on earth is based. If that fear were to vanish, how would he continue to rake in the millions needed for the purchase of his next beach house?
But enough is enough. Why should I sit quietly and let myself be branded a racist? In fact, will someone please explain how the Left is always assumed to have the moral high ground in these kinds of debates? I am particularly curious about this, as leftist policies continue to destroy the lives of tens of millions in this country and billions worldwide.
Advertisement
Let’s go through just a small part of the evidence.
The Left has fought the spread of genetically modified (GM) foods with every weapon in its arsenal. Leftists did this in the name of combatting a long list of “potential risks” that never materialized. They have been permitted to overlook the fact that their assaults on GM food were not cost free. For instance, they have greatly delayed and in some places stopped cold the use of rice modified to increase vitamin A content. For the Left this is cause for celebration. In fact, widespread use of this “golden rice” would have prevented a half-million cases of child blindness a year. So the next time someone talks to you about the evils of genetically modified foods, remind him of the millions of poor children this crusade has condemned to a lifetime of blindness. How do folks prepared to allow millions to needlessly go blind still command the respect of any truly moral person?
However, even looking the other way as children go blind pales in comparison to the needless starving of millions that has occurred because anti-GM-food groups have frightened and bullied the people and governments of Africa into forbidding the use of GM seeds. Such seeds, modified to resist the effects of drought and disease, would make Africa self-sufficient in foodstuffs. But for most African farmers they remain unavailable because of the successful efforts of American and European anti-GM-food groups. Even though every American consumes GM foods on an almost daily basis, with no ill effects, they remain off limits to those most in need.
There is no reason the Somali child pictured below needs to be hungry except for the fact that some groups are working overtime to prevent his country from growing the food needed to feed him. What do you call people who are willing to let millions starve to death rather than let them grow food that scientists long ago proved safe?Why the anti-GM groups are not condemned for crimes against humanity escapes me. For that matter, as these groups have made it their life mission to starve poor Africans, Asians, and other peoples of color, how come they have never been branded as racists?
And malnutrition is not the only problem afflicting Africa and other poor regions of the world. Among the greatest scourges is malaria, which infects 250 million and kills 1 million every year. In fact, in Africa, one in every five childhood deaths is a result of malaria. If you are a reader of average speed, then consider that ten to twelve children will have died from malaria between the time you started this article and the time you finish it. None of this is necessary. Malaria was vanquished in the United States and Europe through the copious use of DDT. But this blessing has been denied poor African nations because Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring blamed DDT for killing eagles and other birds.
Thank you. The sad thing is that, much as you got into this article, it is not even the tip of the iceberg of the murderous indifference the left's policies have caused. Let us just consider the wars created by the atheist, leftist ideologues of the last century such as Mao, Stalin and Hitler. They murdered more people than in all the religious wars of the last two millennia combined.
What the left has done is to take the dysfunctions that people on the right try to rid themselves of, institutionalize those dysfunctions, then proclaim themselves righteous.
I am sorry to say that once I was a leftist. It sure feels good and everyone says nice things about how noble you are. But then I started my senior year in high school - and put away selfish, childish things.
As a former leftist, you will undoubtedly know this reference. For anyone reading this, I beg you: read Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin (1968). Review the quasi-valid concern he raises and then look at his proposed solution (word choice fully intended).
If you have any doubts about Mr. Lacey's argument, you MUST understand: this idea permeates most of modern leftist thinking. All kinds of dots start to be connected when you realize this is one of the baselines for their thought process.
Thank you, sincerely, Mr. Lacey. This is simply excellent and a message many Americans are waiting for the those on the right to send. It's time to stop being afraid of the Left. The truth shall set you free. I do believe that. It's time to start shouting it from the rooftops.
For too long conservatives have been cowed by the character assassination of the left. Imagine, the party that was formed to fight the Civil War, fought Jim Crow, passed the first civil rights acts, and is fighting to break the socialist education monopoly keeping inner city youth uneducated and unemployable, is labeled racist by the party that has been on the wrong side of every one of those issues.
Conservatives have been frightened into not saying the truth about progressives, because of all the lies progressives have been telling about us for years. It's about time we fought back.
Our predecessors fought the Civil War to free black Americans from slavery. It is time we fight a new political/economic/cultural war to free the inner cities from the ravages of socialism.
A good point, and a necessary call to arms. However, conservatives and freedom lovers tend to leave one another alone. If the liberal next door wants to read Mother Jones and vote for Obama, why should I care? I won't tell him how to live so he won't tell my how to live.
The dynamic is understandable. The results are predictable precisely because the two groups live by different rules. We will have to get active to defend our right not to be activists.
You're being extremely unfair to Mr. Gore there, Mr. Lacey, in saying he needs the money to purchase a new beach house. In reality, he needs it to pay for a very expensive divorce caused by his philandering and the public news of his having molested at least a couple of masseuses.
You had me chearing until your "We need not descend into the gutter and trade personal insults". Actually, thats EXACTLY what we need to do.
As you yourself point out, “What I believe rationally is open to debate and change. What I believe emotionally cannot be changed by reason. An emotional belief can only be changed by an emotional argument.” We need to be just as emotional, even moreso, to beat back the hatemongers on the left (see how easy that was).
Indeed - we need to not only claim, but stand firm on the moral high ground, which we hold in all the areas enumerated in this article and many others not even addressed.
For example: why is it that many politicians of the "D" persuasion who are libertines still serve in office - while "R"s wind up being forced out?
Moral character should be a major factor in the vetting of public servants, and not something to ignore if the candidate is a Democrat.
Of course the Left is morally deficient. Our problem in making that plain derives from its power over the media, not from any issue of fact.
People in the communications-intensive trades -- journalism and entertainment -- tend to be emotion-dominant. They don't think; they feel. Show them a picture of a starving Somali infant and they want to help: a creditable response, IF what they then propose to do really, truly helps. Problem is, that usually turns out not to be the case...and after they've published the picture and heartbreaking story of the starving Somali infant, they're not interested in any post-action assessments.
If conservatives could win the attention and respect of the communications-intensive trades, we could sweep the Left from the field. But it's that first step that's the major challenge.
You don't understand how to measure political morality.
Conservatives are to be judged by the worst of their actual results, however far in the past or however tenuously related to contemporary conservative policies (slavery! Jim Crow! Triangle Shirtwaist!); Liberals are to be judged by the best of their intentions.
Once you understand this, you will find that your complaints about moral judgement in politics will dissipate nicely.
I've heard it just slightly differently. Conservative programs are condemned if anyone is harmed, regardless of the number helped. Progressive programs are praised if anyone is helped, regardless of the number harmed.
After all, conservatives are evil and the good they may do is an unintended by-product; while progressives have the purest of motives and any harmful outcomes merely mean the program needs more tweaking.
This comment shows just how effective progressive propaganda has been. Slavery and Jim Crow were not bad conservative acts even "tenuously related to contemporary conservative policies."
The Republican Party was formed for the express purpose of fighting slavery. Jim Crow was an attempt by Democrat/Southern politicians to keep freed slaves from entering society fully. In fact, the Ku Klux Klan was formed by Democrats.
Democrats fought and watered down the original civil rights acts under Eisenhower, and filibustered the 1964 acts under Johnson. All those famous racists who fought desegregation were, and remained for life, Democrats - Wallace, Faubus, Bull Connor, Fulbright, Al Gore Sr...
And they didn't suddenly leave the Democrat Party in the 60s to join the Republican Party. The famous "southern strategy" was nothing more than an attempt by progressive Nixon campaign advisers to take credit for his landslide victories.
It's hard to take the moral high ground when we don't even know our own history.
The Left truly doesn't care about life and cares little for the living in general. The exceptions are only for those of voting age that can be bought off under the guise that they are being 'helped'. Meanwhile, they are actually being made into generational slaves to the state.
