Today the Australian Parliament blocked a cap-and-trade bill, which has been one of the pet legislative projects of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. This is a good example of the choice lawmakers across the world are facing — whether to favor strong economic policy or strong climate-change policy. And at least in Australia, the majority of policymakers have sided with business. Leaders across the world would do well to take note of Australia’s domestic climate-change debate as they pack their bags for Copenhagen.
“The right time for an emissions trading scheme is when the rest of the world is signed up for one and that way all the economies will labor under the same emissions constraints,” said Tony Abbott, whose skepticism on climate change helped him displace opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull. He also said, “I am very happy to see the Australian Prime Minister cut a big figure on the world stage, but we aren’t going to damage the Australian economy to serve Kevin Rudd’s ego.”
Abbott is right, and the climate-change-policy advocates face one key impediment: while economic realities are undeniable, climate-change concerns remain nebulous (especially given this week’s Climategate). Nations can hardly be expected to charitably submit to a big economic disadvantage. So countries and politicians can’t be blamed for addressing their more certain interests first.
Since last year, Australian business has called the cap-and-trade bill “a company killer.” The Business Council of Australia examined 14 companies and determined that at least three would close altogether if the cap-and-trade bill passed, and two more might soon follow. It also cited research claiming that companies’ pre-tax earnings would suffer by 22 percent on average. The Australian populace seems to be listening; according to a recent Lowy Institute poll, climate change has fallen to their seventh foreign-policy priority.
But the climate-change lobbyists have done an especially laughable job of addressing economic concerns, especially after the defeat of the cap-and-trade bill in Australia.
Tim Hanlin, chief executive of Australian Climate Exchange, frets that businesses are “now back in the dark” and will struggle to make investment decisions “with no certainty about the carbon price.” But Mr. Hanlin misses the point that the very policy he endorses is the problem, not the solution. Australian businesses aren’t timid about investment itself; they’re justifiably hesitant to invest when they face crippling taxes and restrictive government policy.
Likewise, John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute, said: “The defeat of [the Australian cap-and-trade bill] is a not only a stumble for Australia doing its bit on climate change, it is an economic stumble, and a competitiveness stumble for Australia. The low-carbon train is leaving the station around the world and Australia is haemorrhaging investments in clean energy industries and technology to competitors in developed and developing countries.” Connor should consider: if low-carbon industry is really as significant an economic boon as he believes, if it really is so surprisingly efficient, if it will really save money and create jobs — shouldn’t it be able to compete even if government doesn’t cripple its rivals?
The climate-change lobby will have to do a better job of defending their position than they’ve done today. At least in Australia, those most ardent about climate change are not enough of a majority to ram bills through the Parliament. They need the support of the moderates and the conservatives — the very groups Rudd and his followers have alienated with their polarizing language. So these same climate-change-policy advocates must now turn to persuasion and honest debate. That promises to be difficult. The urgency of the climate-change message has, thus far, been more easily paired with emotion than rationality.
Well, if we aren’t looking to our president for the solution to certain national problems, what good are our country’s values and institutions? Is the president a problem-solver, or is the president meaningless if we “look to our values, institutions, and fellow citizens”?
A president does have to present himself as the solution; otherwise, what’s the point? Obama might be high-handed, but if we can’t “look to the president” for certain things, the government is in fundamental trouble.
BJC, it’s not the president’s job to eradicate racism or make us love eachother. It’s to “faithfully execute” his office and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution….” That means, primarily, ensuring adequate national defense, enforcing federal laws and proposing a healthy economic agenda. Maverick’s blending of service and entrepreneurial themes I find decidedly awkward, and his latest psyche-baring exercises have me fidgeting with the remote. But I don’t think he expects us to vote for him on account of his hangups. Barry, in contrast, has dressed up his own fairly extravagant ones and turned them into a veritable calling card, presumably to compensate for an embarrassingly lightweight record. That’s not merely being “high-handed,” It’s being disingenuous, if not dangerously self-deluding.
Senator Obama is not the incarnation of JFK. He’s the second coming.
Get it right.
BJC:
Yes, the President is expected to be a leader and a problem-solver. But he’s expected to do that, as guided by our country’s values and institutions.
Otherwise we’d essentially have a brand-new country every four years, when an incoming President tries to remake the country according to his or her own value system, completely disregarding what came before.
I do not expect our President to be the solution to all our problems. If that were the case, then he doesn’t need us. Rather, I expect our President to guide us to solving our own problems, by providing leadership from above.
(Paraphrased quote: “The greatest power of the Presidency is to persuade people to do the things that they ought to do without being persuaded.” — Harry Truman)
Show me a candidate who says “I have ideas of how to solve our problems, and I want to discuss them with you”, and you have my attention. Show me a candidate who says “I know how to solve your problems, and if you elect me, I’ll solve them for you”, and you’ve lost me.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Obama may in fact be patriotic. Though I personally doubt it, there’s no real way of knowing. What we do know is that he owes his victories to the left wing of the left wing party, and they exist somewhere between uncomfortable with patriotic sentiment and virulently unpatriotic.
While those morons represent a huge segment of the vociferous media-grabbing left, they represent a very tiny segment of the overall voting public (see Nixon, 1972 electoral victory or Reagan, 1980/1984 electoral victories).
Let Obama wallow in that pig sty; his electoral defeat will be all the more thorough. The media can ignore the actual implications, and blame it on the racism still running through the veins of the “average white person”, to use Obama’s words. And the Left will have learned not a thing.
Thank God.
Sad commentary on our society when a lapel pin is to be taken as symbolic of patriotic ‘fervor.’ As opposes to, say, being symbolic of ordinary, run-of-the-mill, bog standard patriotism.
BJC – so expand a little on Seth’s comment: history, fairly told, is a march away from the “strong man” theory of political control toward the rule of law and the establishment of reliable “values and institutions.” For example, Progressive Democrats of the 1930s would have loved to just substitute Socialism for the reigning economic, political and social mores of the day. This is not as ridiculous as it may sound today since a broad swath of the political elite – including a number of classical economists – believed Socialism to be both “scientific” and “inevitable”. What stood in their way? Not really FDR – look at his attempts to pack the Supreme Court to ram through his programs.
No, what stood in the way were the “values, institutions, and fellow citizens” of America. Given the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union and our understanding of the ruthless repression that evolved there, that America is *extremely* fortunate to have escaped the temptation to just follow the then-current leaders, unconstrained by her values, institutions and fellow citizens.
Indeed, our entire political system is built to slow down and frustrate attempts to lurch from one fashionable utopian scheme to the next as administrations, legislators and judges change. Truth be told, I think that this is the fundamental “flaw” that progressives and the hard left see in America: in their eyes it is *obvious* what ails America and all of these “values, institutions, and fellow citizens” that frustrate their ambition to fix these “obvious” problems are incontrovertible evidence that America is flawed, racist, etc. (pick your criticism). Their arrogance (which Obama shares) and sheer ignorance of history (are Wright’s lectures not obviously an exercise in ignorance?), however, make them the *last* people that wise citizens look to for guidance.
Daniel states eloquently the same thought I had. Folks usually stop looking for adults come along and solve their problems when they become adults themselves.
the incarnation of JFK – Obama
Some how I just can’t imagine Obama uttering ..
.. nor any other Democrat, save Joe Lieberman.
And a politician can not save our souls – a desire I can’t even imagine someone on tbe rigbt uttering despite the obsession many sites on the internet have with the “theocracy” on the right. A politician’s responsibility, after all, is to save our bodies in, we hope, a limited but intelligent way (OSHA is not always bad nor are keeping our military modern and stronga).
When I read about individuals on the left and their lack of patriotism or supposed lack of patriotism, I squirm just a little because I think it misses a fundamental point. An integral part of the current left ideology isn’t just “lack” of patriotism to America but a scorn for the concept of patriotism itself. Patriotism to the left is an outdated concept that does not fit at all with proper globalist thinking. Patriotism is, to the left, a dangerous concept not just because America does not deserve it, and to them it does not, but because it prevents correct thinking and fosters dangerous ideas such as national defense, which might offend others in other lands more worth of respect.
–Sad commentary on our society when a lapel pin is to be taken as symbolic of patriotic ‘fervor.’
Sad commentary on our society when a US Senator and presidential candidate associates with with violent terrorists who virulently hate America.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_weatherman_Obama_doesnt_need.html
“”Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.”"
Sad commentary on our society when a US Senator and presidential candidate spends 20 years listening to sermons saying “God Damn America” and ‘the government invented AIDS to kill black people’
http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=4443788
A shallow mind looks at symbols. In depth analysis examines actions and trends.
“God Damn America” Obama ’08
BJC – Bad news. There is no Daddy in charge of the country.
Obama is a one-world Socialist who thinks America is just a land mass in the middle of the North American continent. He would not win the election. You can think of it this way: What red states is he going to turn blue? In fact, it is more likely he’ll lose swing states that were blue in 2004 than he would turn red ones into blue.
Multi-culturalism and diversity (kneel in reverence when hearing those knee-jerk rhetorical mantra-like PC words, please) with a lack of core shared values will likely lead to the eventual dismemberment of the Founders “Great Experiment” so why be concerned with politics at all?
Leave the borders wide-open and allow the barbaric hordes to enter pell mell and overwhelm the USA with a non-assimilating culture(s) that can only create cesspool-like countries as seen below our southern border.
Let America’s elites continue to spit upon the masses of citizenry, continue to shove working-poor citizens face-first into the mire of economic servitude while the illegal alien horde dances atop our own home-grown underclass and how long until that underclass, that typically fills the military ranks the elites send overseas to bleed to fight the elite’s battles, rises up in desparation and attacks its enslavers?
A day of reckoning is on the horizon.
When enough common Americans, the non-elites, realize that the USA is in the throes of class warfare and the the elite class is winning will the Union undergo some sort of Civil War Two?
Sadly, so-called “patriotism” is merely a lable used by the elites to hoodwink the masses into accepting the status quo that is so beneficial to the elite class.
As evident within some of the Founder’s writings, true “patriotism” may require the masses to rise up and fight for economic and political freedom against an elite class that has usurped the systems that are now owned and controlled by the few at the expense of the many.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (1775)
“Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.” [in reference to the American colonies] (1776)
“I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.” (1777)
All the words (just words?…) of Samuel Johnson, an Englishman, circa the American Revolution. Gee, sounds just like a modern-day liberal democrat to me.
So when someone brings up that scoundrel quote, ask them about the context. Maybe you can learn ‘um sumthin’.
–Sad commentary on our society when a lapel pin is to be taken as symbolic of patriotic ‘fervor.’
Sad commentary on our society when a US Senator and presidential candidate associates with with violent terrorists who virulently hate America.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_weatherman_Obama_doesnt_need.html
“”Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago.”"
Sad commentary on our society when a US Senator and presidential candidate sits for 20 years and listens to a “pastor” “God damn”-ing America and telling LIES about America such as ‘the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people.
Unlike the left, Obamma’s critics are not falling for symbolism (‘Obamma will make the world love us because he is a black man’; Obamma will erase our race-guilt because he is a black man’) its examining real behavior.
Uh, we should look to the President for policies that can be implemented to solve problems.
The President as THE solution is a dead end.
“A president does have to present himself as the solution; otherwise, what’s the point?”
There you define the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Never has any serious Presidential candidate ever had so many reasons to doubt his patriotism. I never had this many suspicions with even Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s wife and Pastor both hate America. Both are people Obama has chosen to tie closely into his life for 20+ years.
Obama has done the impossible – he has made Hillary look like a Patriot.
“Sad commentary on our society when a lapel pin is to be taken as symbolic of patriotic ‘fervor.’ As opposes to, say, being symbolic of ordinary, run-of-the-mill, bog standard patriotism.”
So, Obama gets to be a symbol of trans-racialism or whatever, but other symbols are disallowed? And what, exactly, is the metric for measuring “bog standard patriotism” ? Evidently it’s anything the Left (or Thomas D disapproves of).
Personally, I don’t care about wearing a flag lapel pin one way or the other, but I think if you tend to go out of the way to highlight your behavior you should expect people to make their own judgment about what the symbolism means.
The leader of a country should, at a minimum, believe in and respect the country he governs. He is our representative to the world. How does Obama get away with running for the highest office of a country whose flag he can’t even bring himself to salute? Isn’t that the least level of respect – or patriotism, if you will – we should expect from our president? This isn’t about silly flag lapel pins. This is about Obama’s reluctance to acknowledge an important and powerful symbol of the land of his birth. How different, deep down, are his views from Wright’s, really?
ThomasD wrote: “Sad commentary on our society when a lapel pin is to be taken as symbolic of patriotic ‘fervor.’ As opposes to, say, being symbolic of ordinary, run-of-the-mill, bog standard patriotism.”
Sad commentary on you when you put the scare quotes around “fervor”.
Also, although Obama eschewed the flag pin, he had 7 (?) full-sized flags behind him when he gave his speech about “Reverend” Wright’s remarks. Patriotic when he needs it? Who other than those of his followers with the most “fervor” could possibly believe he’s patriotic?
At the risk of seeming counter-intuitive, patriotism is largely a matter of symbolism — and that’s a good thing. After all, the American “nation” is really a hodge podge of peoples, religions, sections and separate interests and always has been. We’re united — at least when we have been, which has not been all the time — by abstractions, that is, what people call principles and values and to a lesser extent, an understanding of a common heritage. While we share a space and for the most part a language, those factors alone have often in many parts of the world meant little.
We teach our children and remind ourselves periodically of those abstract principles and values by celebrating them on special days — e.g., July 4th — by playing the National Anthem at large gatherings, by reciting the Pledge (next time you do, think how much it has the same quality and tone as the Apostles Creed), by displaying the national flag (nay, by requiring its display with the force of law in most public places like schools), by flying our own flags or sticking flag decals on our cars or wearing flag lapel pins, by splashing red, white and blue bunting everywhere at political meetings, and so on.
Let’s suppose that we stopped doing all of these things — for a good long while, say, for a generation — while still providing our kids with the same American history and civics classes (such as they are). Would it matter? Might there be some slippage of the new generation’s understanding of and dedication to our commonly held principles and values?
So far, we don’t know the answer to that question — but does anyone really want to test it to find out?
It may be pointed out correctly that with few exceptions, European and other nations are not as caught up in this sort of outward manifestation of patriotism. But most such countries are far more uniform and cohesive racially, ethnically and culturally and have much deeper historic roots, so that what it means to be French, Polish, Japanese or Chinese is clear to all without the need for abstractions. Then, there are the much larger number of countries that have neither — and thus, are prone to coming apart in the absence of powerful centralized and authoritarian control.
In short, we Americans need our patriotic symbols. For the most part, we like them without harboring any fears of runaway jingoism. A major politician who appears to distain them is bound to arouse questions as to why.
RadicalCentrist Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!
This is a Web message board. Well-written concise insightful and logical writings are NOT allowed.
Be gone, ye scoundrel!!!!!!! Desist thine logic and rationality and lower thine self to the typical sub-par standards desired NO!!! demanded by the Web audience!!!.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Please return your seat to its regular upright position.
Obama is deified by exactly those who have eschewed formal religion, but can’t (or won’t) acknowledge their residual religious yearnings to transcend the mundane by appeals to the supernatural.
A willingness to embrace a cult of personality and the worship of the state seem to be the residuum of this yearning among those who lean leftward.
“Today, crystals and acupuncture; tomorrow, Obama and Socialized Medicine! Only thus can we be saved!”