HomeNixon FoundationNixon Center

Beware Of Green Sheep Bearing Urgent Messages

December 11, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Environmental issues, History, International Affairs, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Public Opinion, UN 

Long ago, the wisest of all men who ever trod earthly sod reminded us to beware of those peddling false information, noting that they often appear in “sheep’s clothing,” but really they are nothing more than “ravenous wolves.” These days we are bearing witness to the resurgence of ideas that have long since been discredited in former form, so the wool suit has been brought out for stealthy reasons. But a closer look reveals that those sheep have really big teeth.

Dust off your old Orwellian “newspeak” dictionary, where words are set free from actual meaning. There is a new code in town and it is worthy of being broken – a barely cryptic puzzle, but one that may, in fact, deceive many. Socialism is not only on the comeback trail via a full frontal political assault in our country (never mind that is has never actually worked anywhere), it is also on the march under a new banner – though to see this we must look through the looking glass. Not only has terminology been tweaked, the political color chart is being revised, as well – while too few actually notice.

Green is the new Red.

The actual practical application of so-called socialist dogma since the days when its seeds were hydrated in the bloodbath of the French Revolution has never come close to living up to its utopian promises. The goals of equality and liberty – noble concepts themselves – have never been achieved through coercive collectivism. Countries have certainly tried to level the playing field – or, if you prefer “spread the wealth around” – but it has always been done at the expense of personal freedom, not to mention the fact that wealth has tended to disappear in the process of that “spreading.” Some of the wealth did, of course, survive – for a time at least – in the coffers of those who happened to be the ruling elite du jour.

In other words, although socialism has regularly been presented as the cultural and political pathway to fairness and prosperity for all, it has had a poor record in history. In fact, it has tended to actually make matters worse. But never mind that: let’s give the tired doctrine one more try. After all, we have smarter people in charge now and the fact that the math still doesn’t add up is irrelevant.

It’s the same with environmentalism. As the world watched what happened this past week in wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen, the mantra was about saving the planet. But lurking beneath and behind the machinations and rhetoric of this latest climate-change-kum-by-ya moment is the same old ideology, albeit with a leafy facelift. Saving the planet, we are regularly told by the smart people, requires more centralization of power and less individual liberty.

And if there is any doubt as to this agenda, we need only look back to a few days ago when Environmental Protection Agency Czarina, Lisa Jackson, told us all that the EPA regards carbon dioxide as a grave threat to mother earth and that the pollutant must therefore be controlled by government guardians. They’ll be the people wearing those special biohazard suits – yep, you guessed it, the ones made of wool.

It is emerging that there are plans, if the Congress doesn’t do the bidding of the new greed reds, to simply do a smack down on the economy with a method described as “command-and-control.” This is a management style popularized in the now deceased HBO series, “The Sopranos,” as in that memorable line, “I got your ‘command-and-control’ right here – badda bing, badda boom.”

You say, “cap-and-trade,” others say, “command-and-control,” why don’t we call the whole thing off?

Please don’t miss the significance of what Jackson has said. Our entire economy is based just as much on carbon as it is the dollar. A “command-and-control” approach is another way of saying: “You think a take over of health care is a power grab? Wait until you see this!”

What does this have to do with socialism? Environmentalism relates to socialism in much the same way that Marxism relates to Leninism – and for the same reason. Neither is really about giving people a better life or saving the planet. The ultimate agenda – the wolf in sheep’s clothing – is political power and the micromanagement of individual lives through collectivism, with all the strings pulled by an emerging political aristocracy made up of the “really smart” people. And I use that word “aristocracy” deliberately, though with tongue-in-cheek, because the word comes from the Greek and literally means: “the rule of the best.”

The problem is that this latest group of “the best and the brightest” has a clear and present problem with priorities. We are facing some very great crisis-level challenges in America, the top two being, 1. It’s the economy, stupid, and 2. The war against Islamism (or, reverse the order, if you like). But the body language of those “really smart” people is all about matters that, well, don’t actually matter to most Americans – at least not right now.

Seventeenth century British preacher, Thomas Fuller, a man who would have done well in the age of the sound bite, once said: “He that is everywhere is nowhere.” This is the same idea Steven Covey and other management gurus talk about when they warn that the “urgent” can be the enemy of the “important.” And Americans right now are living under a new tyranny – that of the neo-urgent. However, the present “urgent-priority” is being orchestrated by those who seem to simply want power centralized and personal liberties marginalized.

Oh, by the way, Thomas Fuller also famously said, “It is always darkest just before the day dawneth,” which gives me some comfort. That is, until I recall one college professor of mine many years ago – a particularly and regularly befuddled man – who once botched this quote while giving us a pep talk before a major exam: “Now, uh, class, uh, always remember what Thomas Fuller said, ‘It is always darkest before the storm.”



Comments

2 Responses to “Beware Of Green Sheep Bearing Urgent Messages”

  1. DAVE in UT on December 12th, 2009 7:25 am

    “Revstokes” – You’re really on to something.

    Just yesterday [Friday - Dec. 11th], I responded to an East Coast [Flordia] news-paper’s on-line ‘unscientific’ poll – on whether the U.S. should follow-the-leaders from demands on Developed Nations @ the Copenhagen ‘environment summit’.

    I voted “NO”!

    And did so, just to test the paper’s cast results!

    Curiously = NONE WERE AVAILABLE!

    Guess I was among the majority voting, then!

    Perhaps? ;-)

  2. D.C. Dude on December 12th, 2009 12:50 pm

    A debate in comboxes on a conservative blog got into some of the base driven arguments about global warming. Of course, neither side was able to convince the other of the science of the matter. Frustrated, a self-described moderate poster said he wanted more study and presentation of facts, not the same old arguments. He pointed to the way the left calls the right avaricious and disinclined to believe in human affected global warming due to its money grubbing tendencies and the right calls the left overly controlling and enamored of nanny state solutions. The debate among posters came down to the question of what to do on a day that is becoming warmer and warmer while you’re wearing a dark sweater while you’re out walking. Liberals said, make the necessary changes, take off the sweater, put on something else One of the conservatives said, wait until summer clothes go on sale. To me, the joking exchanges summed up the two sides better than your sheep imagery.

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s 1% doctrine on terrorism (“if there’s a 1% chance . . . . we have to treat it as a certainty”) could be applied to questions related to climate change. This isn’t a question of socialism or capitalism but rather risk assessment. The right and left assess risks differently. More conservatives than moderates and liberals reject the idea of man-made global warming. If conservative skeptics are wrong, then it will be their grandchildren, not they themselves, who pay the price financially and in terms of quality of life and weakened national security. If the most aggressive liberal activisits are wrong, many businesses will have taken a hit in profits and production, some will have gone out of business, and consumers will be effected, but our economy won’t collapse. So pick your bad outcome. Except we won’t because the question of what to do about global warming, important as it is, has become overly politicized.

    Current polls show that more voters support some form of cap and trade than not. That doesn’t mean politics won’t mess up the issue as it has so many others. We live in a kick the can down the road age. The idea of sacrificing for the common good is not as accepted as it once was. Republicans largely have shrunk to a home and hearth party, Democrats lack consensus between moderates and liberals, and centrists hate the exaggeration and name calling. Shared values have fallen by the wayside. As much as we say that we admire the World War II generation, they largely failed to pass on a widely accepted sense of responsibility to successive generations. Even the way wars are fought changed during the Bush administration to what a conservative blogger recently labeled as credit card bellicosity. Short term pain for long term gain. When is the last time you heard that old fashioned phrase? The concept has become politically toxic.

Got something to say?