| I stand corrected concerning some of the things I've said about Twitter. I thought there was little chance to lay out an idea adequately, but apparently one can with Chirpstory, and @Dirk2112 certainly did.
Difference between Liberalism and Progressivism.
Hat tip to Angry Black Lady.
No doubts, many discussions could be had over the distinctions and verbal classifications that Dirk2112 draws in his thesis, which must have been a real pain to tweet. But the takeaway is pretty obvious. Ofttimes the biggest impediment to change and/or progress resides with the left, not the right. The deepest divisions stand among those who think themselves like-minded. Some would have it that I am finely agreeing that 'Democrats are really the problem'. No, that's a failure to actually define what the problem is, and working to solve it.
This is important to realize with all the caterwauling currently being done over wolf reintroduction. It's not just online. It is truly a region wide issue, important to many people. It is damned important to me, and has been since well before wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone. They were already moving back of their own accord, and had no action been taken to reintroduce them, we'd still be facing these issues.
Matthew Koehler helpfully points out that Idaho Governor Otter signed a bill allowing him to declare a "wolf disaster emergency". Rather unhelpfully, however, Koehler links to a sensationalist, and truly false, HuffPo piece attributed to Rueters that states Otter has declared such an emergency. That's not "pants on fire" false, but it certainly isn't the truth. Otter has done no such thing.
I'll freely admit that I personally enjoy finding such holes in the narrative coming from the liberal environmentalist groups, given the number of times I've been told that I don't really understand these issues. Yes, I do, as do many on the left when they're not being lied to or talked down to. All many of us have wanted was rational local control of a predator species in a prey rich environment. That is a progressive goal, downright democratic even. It is the recovery of a species such that it no longer needs the blanket of being "endangered". It should be obvious at this point that the goal of the liberal environmentalist is something different. That is actually defining the problem, and it would appear to be among the left, not the right.
Seeking a solution to the problem, as seen by a progressive, continually stands against the disingenuous presentation of goals by the liberal. The most pernicious is the "Science" canard. Read the comments in the link from Suzanne Stone, and you'll see what I'm discussing writ large.
Stone said Otter's decision is "based on unjustified hysteria rather than sound science. We need our leaders to focus on resolving conflicts, not perpetuating them."
Notice please that Stone's latter sentence has nothing to do with science, and her defense of science is based on an Ad Hominem lie. This is strictly my opinion, though probably shared by others, but the Ad Hominem in defense of meaninglessness is habitual to the environmentalist liberal. It doesn't respond to the demand for Science in any meaningful way. Here's what does. Wolf numbers have increased far beyond expectation in the region. Wolves are spreading to other states and will well establish themselves throughout the Northwest without a whole lotta help from humans. That is, they will do so if we don't hurt them by 'helping them'. Stone herself admits that Idaho's wolf population is stabilizing. That would be the 'science' right there.
Quite effectively, Stone's argument is this: Even giving the power of control to those we have chosen to have that power can (will) upset that balance of science. That's not science. It's speculation. More insidiously, it's finger pointing. If something bad happens then it is someone else to blame. Koehler's original comment pointing to this horror in Idaho was precisely an attempt at that very thing, finger pointing. This all is happening as consequence of Jon Tester's rider to the budget continuation bill. But that is the problem with the chain of cause and effect. One can actually choose to look a little further back then another would wish, and that's why obfuscation and fallacy are so very important to the 'liberal' environmentalist. They don't want the light shown on themselves as being part of the problem. But they actually are.
Two plus years ago, Secretary Salazar of the DOI actually paid attention to the science, and asked for wolf control plans from the three states wolves were recovered in. Wyoming's plan was less than stellar. So, wolves were delisted in Montana and Idaho given the caveat that those states would follow the plans submitted. 14 environmental groups sued because those plans involved wolf hunts, the killing of wolves. They got what they wanted which was an injunction against wolf hunts based on an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. I've written that so many times my fingers are sore. But they really don't want anyone else to question whether that's best for science or the species or progress or change. Simply put, and obviously exposed, it's not good for any of the above. They got what they wanted and couldn't stop what they'd unleashed. As Dirk2112 pointed out so clearly, that was very liberal of them, but not very progressive.
I pointed out earlier that the goals of the liberal environmentalists and progressives aren't the same, and that's the actual opposition at play here. The goals of the liberal environmentalists have been defeated. They didn't want rational or scientific management of wolves. They wanted no management at all. No hunts, no controls, and no concern whatsoever for those whose lives were actually impacted by a predator in the region. They sued to get no management, Molloy agreed that there should be no management until Congress would act, and Congress acted. The protections for wolves would have been vastly better with the original deal between the states and Salazar before the lawsuits. The protections for wolves would have been vastly better had the deal struck between the DOI and the 10 environmental groups been accepted. As a particular Drama Queen pointed out, the remaining 4 groups didn't have to sign on because they had won, and screw you all. Uhh, they've lost now, and so have the rest of us. Now comes the finger pointing. It is Otter's fault, but really it's Jon Tester's, aned most certainly mine. No, It's the fault of liberal environmentalists for not paying attention to science, or their fellow humans in a democratic republic, or the needs of a stable wolf population or anything but really their own need to fight for a principle which really isn't principled at all. The Bozeman Chronicle had an editorial last Friday which wrote basically the same thing I have here, and I will post it should it ever be displayed online. The punchline was this: Be careful what you wish for.
I have written papers and screeds and editorials about the difference between conservationists and the preservationists. I will not play that argument out here, at least not yet. But the reader would be well advised that on many issues the liberal environmentalists/professional left are more than happy to lie to you, attack you and shoot you in the foot to get what they want which will hurt what you want. I have followed wolf issues since the mid 1980s when they were reintroducing themselves into Montana. I have studied it very well. The results we see here today are not as tragical as portrayed, but they certainly don't serve anyone very well. If you wish to play the blame game, then you'd be well advised to examine who really is being paid to point fingers, and why they're being paid to do it. Simple truth, it ain't for your benefit. |
