A Conversation With My Cousin

My cousin, Mark, had some interesting remarks about my Independence Day post. Here are some of them, and my responses.

M: As a people and a country we are mega consumers, we import considerably more than we export which empowers the other countries we are competing with. As a business plan it can only lead us into financial ruin.

One of the few things our country does export is large quantities of military weapons. Thousands of us are employed by companies connected to weapons. This only adds to the world’s negative outlook on our government and us as people and fuels anti-American sentiment.

J: Consumerism is a cancer in this country. We depend so heavily on cheap imported goods that we are virtual slaves to our suppliers. Sometimes those suppliers are not our friends. I agree that it's a recipe for financial ruin.

M: Unfortunately we who may disagree with our government can't gather up friends and family with similar views and move to some other continent and start over as our founding fathers did. The world today is a much smaller place where we will continue to rub elbows with friends and enemies, plain and simple, we just have to get along or we will continue to perpetuate hate and instability in our country and the entire world, thus insuring our children and grand children a miserable life.

J: In spite of all that, we do have to get along, as you say. We have to follow the "Golden Rule" and treat other individuals as we would be treated. Our country should treat other countries as we'd like to be treated, too. If we want to be dealt with in a respectful way, we need to be respectful.

M: I'm not clear on these things in your letter. Is paying off our national debt the “oppression” you mention?

J: The huge debt we're passing on to our kids and grandkids is part of the oppression that I'm talking about. Oppression can come in the form of an iron fist, as in the Soviet Union. It can also come in the form of a smothering parent, as in a government that is so interested in our doing what is right that it leaves no room for growth in its citizens.

M: Is what you call “political science fiction” the global warming that you think our children won’t need to worry about?

J: As far as global climate change goes, despite what some politicians say, the debate is not over. There is a large body of evidence that suggests climate change is a normal part of the earth's cycle, like breathing. The idea that man is contributing significantly - or even at all - is one that can trace its roots back to British scientists. In the 1980s British coal miners went on strike, threatening to cripple the UK's energy industry and putting its national security at risk. Margaret Thatcher worked hard to find a scientist whose research suggested that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was key to trapping the sun's energy and keeping the earth warm. From there he had deduced that an excess of CO2 could cause warming of the earth. Most of his peers dismissed this as a crack-pot theory, but Madame Thatcher used that idea to promote her nation's nuclear (clean) energy program and to reduce the country's exposure in the event of another coal miner's strike.
The hard science shows a definite connection between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. But the CO2 levels are not a leading indicator. They are a lagging indicator. That is to say that warmer temperatures increase the levels of CO2 in the air. Higher levels of CO2 do not precede or cause temperature increases.

Will our descendants have to deal with climate change? Possibly. But it will not have been caused by man. And nothing we can do - including destroying our economy - will stop it. If the earth is "breathing", believe me - it's going to finish its breath. The cycle will run its natural course as it has thousands of times over billions of years in geologic history.
And who says it's bad to grow bananas in Oregon or corn in Northern Siberia?

M: Did you vote against your values in 2008? How were you "bullied"? Did McCain intentionally throw the election?

J: As for my vote in 2008, I suppose I voted for a candidate who was not as close to my values as I'd have liked. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the ideas of libertarianism. That is not to say that I agree with the platform of the Libertarian party. I think that less is more when it comes to government oversight of my life. I think, though, that Libertarians can be almost amoral. And that becomes a huge problem, when you have a government that insists on the rule of law because it is the law, and not because it is the RIGHT thing.

But I'm a fan of smaller, more limited government and a believer that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Given that, government can have no power except it be given to it by the people. And the people can give government no power except the power that they rightfully have. If we look at things in that way, we see that if I do not have the right to tell my neighbor that he may not smoke cigarettes in the car with his children there, then neither may the government. If I do not have the right to remove all trans-fats from my neighbor's refrigerator, neither may the government. You see, both of those things are good, I believe. But because of the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution and, as the founders believed, endowed to us by our Creator, my neighbor has the right to make bad choices. If I do not have the right to take my neighbor's money and give it to someone else, then neither does the government.

Now, I'm not an anti-tax person. I'm all for the government providing services to my family and my neighbors, and I'm willing to pay my share of those services. What I object to is the taking of my money and using it in ways that do not benefit my family and my neighbors; or worse, as in the recent bail-outs, forcing it onto failing companies rather than letting them die their well-deserved deaths.

So, was I bullied into voting for John McCain? I heard so many pundits and political thinkers harangue about the dire consequences of electing Barack Obama - and I believe that we WILL see even worse things than we already have - that I got a little scared. Rather than voting for the person who held a values set closest to my own, I voted for the better (barely) of two "electable" candidates.

I think McCain did throw the election in 2008. He refused to expose any bad or questionable aspects of his opponent. On the one hand, I admire a campaign that refuses to engage in the politics of personal destruction. But he also failed to enlighten the country on why he would have been a GOOD president. And there were some very relevant things about Barack Obama that he would not allow his campaign or his surrogates to discuss. As far as Sarah Palin goes, whatever you think of her, she was immensely popular with his conservative base. For a week or two she gave his campaign a tremendous boost. Then she disappeared. When we did see her she was with John McCain and played the role of quasi-worshipful running mate. Her independent "attitude" was gone. Then the campaign let her go on with Katie Couric for that disastrous interview. They should have known how the questions would be set and how the tape editing would go. I'll bet that was difficult for even the most ardent Obama supporter to watch her be drawn and quartered on national television.

He was either a terrible strategist and a dismal tactician, or he threw the election.