3 ms·

>This straw-mans common conservative views, though. Not at all, when conservatives who do come to power always immediately move to dismantle the EPA, as with t

>This straw-mans common conservative views, though. Not at all, when conservatives who do come to power always immediately move to dismantle the EPA, as with the current administration. Not to mention that conservative politicians endlessly rail against the evils of the EPA in terms not even remotely nuanced. I know, I know, "they're not really conservatives!".

swebs 9y ago
So we have the issue where the majority of conservative voters think the country must do whatever it takes to protect the environment [1], but elected conservative officials think otherwise. How do you think this should be handled? Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents Personally, I would chose option 2, but I guess option 1 is good too if your goal is to cause divisiveness or even to push conservatives away from agreeing with you [2] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental-issues/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-da... [2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-05/conservatives-dont-hate-environment-new-research-suggests https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-05/conservatives-dont-ha...
- mcphage 9y ago
  > Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda > Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents Sorry, could you remind me again who's electing those "elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents"?
moduspol 9y ago
But the EPA hasn't been dismantled, and we've had many Republican presidents. Regulations and budgets have been cut, but that's consistent with the belief that the EPA is too big and bureaucratic. It's just so needlessly pointless to frame things this way. It'd be like posting pictures of people in bread lines in the USSR and saying, "this is what a country looks like with left-wing politicians in charge." I mean, yes, it's true, but it's straw-manning all left-wing politicians as full-blown communists. Let's try to avoid straw-manning and demonizing political opponents and maybe we'll be able to improve the discourse a little. > Not to mention that conservative politicians endlessly rail against the evils of the EPA in terms not even remotely nuanced. Yes, sometimes politicians are a big exaggerated with their rhetoric. That's not unique to conservatives, though.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>But the EPA hasn't been dismantled, and we've had many Republican presidents. Regulations and budgets have been cut... That’s exactly how you dismantle a large government agency. You cut budgets until the organization is so crippled it can’t do its job, then you point at how ineffective it is and use that to drum up enough political will to abolish it. “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” - Grover Norquist
  - moduspol 9y ago
    In your view, is there any way to curtail a bloated bureaucracy without being accused of trying to destroy it completely? Can a bureaucracy ever get too big, or to the point that its negative effects outweigh its positives? > “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” - Grover Norquist This quote doesn't imply desire to destroy it, but capability. The desire of people being more powerful than their government is not a radical idea.

swebs 9y ago

So we have the issue where the majority of conservative voters think the country must do whatever it takes to protect the environment [1], but elected conservative officials think otherwise. How do you think this should be handled? Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents Personally, I would chose option 2, but I guess option 1 is good too if your goal is to cause divisiveness or even to push conservatives away from agreeing with you [2] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental-issues/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-da... [2] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-05/conservatives-dont-hate-environment-new-research-suggests https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-05/conservatives-dont-ha...

mcphage 9y ago
> Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda > Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents Sorry, could you remind me again who's electing those "elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents"?

moduspol 9y ago

But the EPA hasn't been dismantled, and we've had many Republican presidents. Regulations and budgets have been cut, but that's consistent with the belief that the EPA is too big and bureaucratic. It's just so needlessly pointless to frame things this way. It'd be like posting pictures of people in bread lines in the USSR and saying, "this is what a country looks like with left-wing politicians in charge." I mean, yes, it's true, but it's straw-manning all left-wing politicians as full-blown communists. Let's try to avoid straw-manning and demonizing political opponents and maybe we'll be able to improve the discourse a little. > Not to mention that conservative politicians endlessly rail against the evils of the EPA in terms not even remotely nuanced. Yes, sometimes politicians are a big exaggerated with their rhetoric. That's not unique to conservatives, though.

enraged_camel 9y ago
>>But the EPA hasn't been dismantled, and we've had many Republican presidents. Regulations and budgets have been cut... That’s exactly how you dismantle a large government agency. You cut budgets until the organization is so crippled it can’t do its job, then you point at how ineffective it is and use that to drum up enough political will to abolish it. “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” - Grover Norquist
- moduspol 9y ago
  In your view, is there any way to curtail a bloated bureaucracy without being accused of trying to destroy it completely? Can a bureaucracy ever get too big, or to the point that its negative effects outweigh its positives? > “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” - Grover Norquist This quote doesn't imply desire to destroy it, but capability. The desire of people being more powerful than their government is not a radical idea.