Two "Tells" of Progressives and Statists (but I repeat myself) - Granite Grok

Two “Tells” of Progressives and Statists (but I repeat myself)

From the Washington Post, a headline that just drips Progressivism:

“We need to eat less meat. Should the government step in?”

Uh-huh – got it.  Ah….no.  Certainly it is beyond discussion that to say that the WashPo leans Left is like saying the Tower of Pisa isn’t straight. So this Laura Wellesley morphs herself into a Nanny State – “You don’t need that” (THE tell that screams “I’m a Progressive so you DON’T know what’s best for you”) nag as if she should be the boss of us all (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Meat consumption in the United States — and across much of the Western world — has reached a level that is unsustainable, both for our planet and for our health. We owe it to ourselves to make a change. Our politicians owe it to us to enable that change.

First off, anytime I hear “unsustainable”, I immediately think “Hope & Change” which translates to

“it means nothing at all” as it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

Second, if it is that good of a “thing”, then maybe I should change it – for myself.  But this is where yet another Progressive tell appears: “Our politicians owe it to us to enable that change“; a two-fer:

I think it’s a good idea for you to change

If you don’t willingly change according to my will, I will use government to make you change.

Yep, another redefinition of the language right out from underneath us.  No, the author doesn’t mean enable (which in this case, enabling individuals to go vegan) in the traditional sense of get stumbling blocks out of the way to choose “no meat / less meat”.  No, the last time I looked, if I wanted to go vegan (and I’d rather be in a bear trap with hungry wolves gnawing on my legs than go vegan), I could go vegan.  No, no one has to “enable” me to make that choice.

What she does mean, however, is for politicians to put stumbling blocks in my way in eating meat.  Well, that certainly would make me a vegan, right?  Just like Progressives are doing to my Second Amendment right to exercise – make it harder and harder to exercise that Right.  Here, she wants a centralized government to force that choice upon me.

And that’s how Progressives work – first mangle the language and then reverse it to be the opposite.

The average American eats three times as much meat as experts deem healthy, the average European around twice as much. And the emerging economies are quickly catching up: by 2050, global consumption is expected to rise a further 76 percent. Excessive meat-eating is partly responsible for an epidemic of obesity — now one of the most costly social burdens, according to the consultancy McKinsey. Over-consumption of red and processed meat is contributing to the rising incidence of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, type-2 diabetes and certain cancers.

What’s more, this pattern of excess is a key driver of environmental damage and a serious drain on water and land. The livestock sector accounts for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same share as every car, truck, plane, train and ship put together. Unless we significantly reduce our meat consumption — by about half across the West, by up to two-thirds across much of the United States — it will be virtually impossible to keep global temperature rise below the danger threshold of 2 degrees.

Blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.  And then she couches her “enable” again by pointing out a real use of that force – “guidelines” that end up as the force of law – just look at the “Thanks, Michelle” movement by school kids who couldn’t bear to eat their lunches dictated by the “guidelines of the New Mandarins of DC.

And then points to one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world and goes “see, it works!”:

Last month, the world’s most populous country, China, took an important step in addressing the population’s increasingly unhealthy meat-eating habits, introducing national dietary guidelines that recommend a daily meat intake half that of current consumption levels. The move was designed to avert a public-health crisis, but it was also good news from an environmental perspective. Governments around the world should take note: National dietary guidelines are a good starting point for tackling unsustainable meat-eating habits, and they could help curb the climate-change-inducing impacts of our diets.

And she is well aware of the trickle down and sideways consequences of what seems to be rather benign:

Dietary guidelines inform public policy, guiding menu choices in public institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals. They provide direction to industry, prompting supply-side changes and innovation in response to an anticipated rise in demand for non-meat products. And they indicate that the government is serious about public health, the environment and the climate.

Hey, a government directed and controlled economy is just DANDY (she just leaves out that little detail that wherever it has been tried, it has failed).  And with that, she closes with the belief that we all are good little sheeple just on their knees as we just don’t know what’s good for us and are just WAITING to be told how to behave – after all, those receiving a government paycheck MUST be better than the rest of us, right?

This last point is key when it comes to shifting attitudes. Our research indicates that consumers take their prompts from official agencies when deciding which issues matter and what changes need to be made.

Ah….no.  We only “take their prompts” because they take choice away from us. No choice in a free market means we don’t have the full benefit of others trying to serve others.  Remember, it was some nitwit bureaucrat that gave us new-fangled gas cans that cause more swearing at government and petroleum products leaking into the ground because “we have to protect you from yourselves” (the idiots throwing gas from older cans onto open fires).

A government that is silent on excessive, unsustainable meat eating is sending a message to carry on as normal. But a government that introduces a forward-looking policy of reduced consumption — promoting a healthier and more sustainable eating pattern — signals that overconsumption is something we should all really care about.

No, it means a government that is intrusive and makes life a little more collapsing onto us.  Trust me, no one “cares” about having those new gas cans.  In fact, I’d much rather have that silent government because it means it is respecting ME and the choices I want to make; an activist government doesn’t.

 

But there is no one silver bullet to prompting the behavior change that is so sorely needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. Dietary guidelines alone will not be enough. Climate change and environmental sustainability tend not to inform our food choices in the store. Health concerns do, but so, too, do prices. Taste, convenience and the habits of our friends and families also play major roles.

As our focus group interviewees freely admitted, our choices are guided to a large extent by the retail environment around us. If we’re to swap our bacon sandwich for a bean taco, the environment in which we eat and shop must change as well.

Yep, nothing says Progressive like advocating for a Government that controls each and every bite you take.  Think I jest?

Just ask Michelle Obama.

(H/T: Instapundit)

>