Welcome to Part 2 of TDS vs BDS

Climate Change

You might consider climate change to be a crisis. I once did. I still consider it to be an urgent problem. But I also think we have quit considering the possible downside of “green” solutions while continuing to rule out the use of nuclear power. Are miles and miles of decommissioned solar panels green? Are massive installations of wind turbines onshore and off “green” if there is no ability to manage supply or cover high demand days? Are any batteries green? Why do we only consider the downside of nuclear power rather than continuing to research new and better ways to build power plants? 

And what about storm damages? People build on the edge of bluffs that erode; or beaches that succumb to hurricanes; or ground that cannot absorb or channel water from major storms; or the edges of wild lands that are likely to burn. Yes, the world continues to build where we shouldn’t, where the cost of natural disasters is staggering, and then blame the losses on climate change instead of our determination to defy the forces of nature. 

Climate is complicated. Science is complicated. Climate science is especially complicated, and we need to be sure that we are not silencing voices of scientists just because they don’t agree with a fake consensus. I don’t know the right answers to questions about climate change, so this is a true dilemma for me. I have to be very careful about choosing whose reports and opinions to guide my thinking. It’s hard. It takes time. And I have to be open to new points of view without throwing caution to the wind. What I don’t want is politicians who are certain about anything. I want politicians who are continuing to learn. Many think Biden has dug in on climate and fault him for pouring money into inappropriate green ventures. An existential threat? Maybe, maybe not.

Public Health

Remember the Left saying we need to “follow the science” regarding Covid policies? Oh my. As if it were so simple. Science evolves slowly and hesitantly, often two steps forward, one step backwards; one development promises to cure something, but then it doesn’t. And a new pathogen takes years to understand. 

If you have not re-evaluated your thinking about something related to Covid, I wonder what you’ve been focusing your attention on. I was once a supporter of vaccine mandates for all adults while retaining a bit of skepticism regarding children. Now I think that the remarkable age curve of the dangers of Covid (very dangerous to old people, much less dangerous to young people) calls into question the mandates for all (WA) state employees to get vaccinated. At some point, the decreasing dangers of Covid should allow people to evaluate the risks for themselves. 

I suppose my biggest gripe concerning Covid policy is keeping schools closed for so long. This is one policy that, even at the time, concerned me. I blame no one for decisions in the spring of 2020 when we knew so little, but by summer we clearly were in a position to tally up the dangers of Covid against the impact of closing schools for so long. I think we won’t overcome the divergent impacts of this debacle during my lifetime. 

I could go on: masks, lockdowns, social distancing, closing parks. I lived in a retirement community during Covid, so many restrictions were rational within that setting. But for the outside world, it might have been wise to consider the negative impacts of public health policies more carefully – in my humble opinion. The fracturing of society was exasperated by rigid policies that infringed on people’s freedom to avoid a pathogen that was relatively mild for most people. 

I’m old, so caution made sense. But. But shouldn’t government officials consider disparate impacts more thoughtfully rather than fuel the fires that were set off by Covid policies?

Foreign Relations

Some people believe that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in power (he didn’t invade during Trump’s term after all). And they believe that Hamas would not have committed the October 7 atrocities if Trump had been in power.

Part of their rationale for thinking Hamas would not have committed the October 7 atrocities is that Trump did not molly-coddle Iran. Therefore Iran would have ceased emboldening its proxies in the Middle East. I don’t know if this would have prevented October 7, but I’ll confess that I think Biden, and Obama before him, have tried too hard to find reasons to trust Iran, which is simply not a trustworthy foe in my mind. The overtures to Iran pose an existential threat in the minds of many who therefore consider Biden an existential threat. Hence fuel for Biden derangement syndrome. 

Foreign relations is one of many fields in which I am not an expert, but I am finding that, in my old age, I’ve lost some of my idealism. I consider my new perspective more “realistic.” The invasion of Ukraine shocked me into my current realism. We are not beyond war. 

Throughout most of my life, I was unaffected by whatever conflicts were raging elsewhere. We bought houses and cars, went fishing and clamming, took kayak trips around the BC coast, worked, then retired and did some gardening. I let the military and State Department worry about the rest of the world. Then came the Ayatollahs and 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and Assad, ISIS, and Putin.

Putin came into power, and before long his interest in re-constituting the Russian empire became apparent. Trump’s attraction to Putin might have led him to just give Ukraine away (would other NATO countries have conceded this? I don’t know.) But is giving away a free country to a neighboring bully a good solution to avoid a war? I think not. But to some who favor more isolationist foreign policy, Biden’s support for Ukraine might seem ill-advised. An existential threat to the US? I would consider giving Ukraine away to be the existential threat, but that’s just me.

********

My point in this longer-than-usual pair of posts is not that people should fear a Biden second term. I am still more afraid of a Trump second term than a Biden second term if only because I think our system of government cannot survive unless a losing candidate accepts the loss. And yes, I believe that Biden won the 2020 election and Trump lost. 

My goal is simply to help “my people” understand some of the reasons that others fear a Biden second term. Granted, I don’t see how they are able to gloss over Trump’s behavior after the election. But I have read, and watched, and listened to Trump’s apologists explain what they liked about things that happened during Trump’s term in office. 

If you’re willing to read, listen to, or watch content with another point of view, visit the websites of some of the much maligned conservative think tanks such as the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, or the Manhattan Institute. Their ideas are not all bad!