I see your point, but I think you are oversimplifying a bit. Take censorship as an example. Leftists are doing all they can to stop "hate speech" and "misinformation." How can anyone argue against that? Well, the problem is that they define essentially anything they disagree with as "hate speech." And they themselves are the ones promoting most of the "misinformation," including both Russia hoaxes and many other lies.
The simple fact is that those who want to ban "hate speech" and "misinformation" have no understanding of or concern for free speech and the First Amendment. Banning those things is a violation of free speech --- and banning free speech will lead ultimately to totalitarian tyranny. That's as evil as it gets, so it should be non-negotiable.
But I think you missed what is actually happening in the climate debate. The climate alarmists are trying to use the climate as a lever or pretext to push their leftist political agenda, which will ultimately impoverish most of humanity if it is fully implemented, causing unfathomable suffering.
The issue is not that some people want to destroy the earth and some want to save it. The issue is some are using the issue as a pretext for another objective.
The alarmists are the ones "moralizing" the issue, but a strong case can be made that they are actually the ones pushing an evil agenda. Of course, you can now say that I am "moralizing" the issue as well, but I believe avoiding worldwide suffering *is* a moral issue.
If you haven't seen it yet, please watch the excellent documentary called Climate: The Movie
I think I get where you're taking us, rhetorically speaking, and look forward to the next letter on this topic. There's a lot more grey than you're letting on, which I hope you can address. I would argue that if we need to get our heads screwed on and stop moralizing all these non-moral issues and let the Arena thrive once again, we do need to be looking carefully at characterizing the body of debate now polarizing the country.
There's going to be issues which one side feels are 'moral' and perhaps the other side does not. Does that make these non-moral issues? Climate change isn't necessarily a moral issue by your definition, but there are those who feel it is an existential topic and those who feel it is not--and that gap creates a tension that the 'Arena' struggles to deal with. Abortion rights questions tug at one side's definition of what is moral vs the other side's definition of personal rights. 'Culture wars' broadly merits discussion in this context.
There seems a punchline bifurcation in your idea of moralization of politics: is there an undercurrent that the business of running a country (taxes, foreign and domestic policies etc) is being sidelined by non-moral battles and thus neglected to the detriment of the country? Or if these questions are moral in nature (and thus all-or-nothing questions), are the institutions in place capable of helping a nation move forward to resolve these moral questions---and if not, what fixes (e.g. Supreme Court term limits as you proposed a few weeks back) might be things we ought to consider in the name of preserving our republic?
Let me explain what I mean by the climate change example to see if I can make what I mean by this point more clear.
Imagine a hypothetical world in which there were people on one side who actively wanted to destroy the earth's biosphere for some reason. They knew what they were doing. They knew billions would suffer and die from their actions. Maybe they liked the malevolence of it. Maybe they would get rich in their lifetimes and by the time everyone was dead so would they, so they didn't care. This would be a moral issue. One side would be fighting to do something evil and the other side something good.
Now imagine a different hypothetical. Here, the same group was advocating the same policies with the same result. But they didn't believe anyone was going to get hurt. In fact, they thought their ideas would protect the biosphere and save billions of lives. They're not advocating for evil here. You just think they're wrong.
What does the difference matter? In either case, the some policies are getting pushed with the same, you believe, horrific results. But it matters quite a lot.
The first case is a moral battle. It can only be won by total war. The only right thing to do is to defeat the people actively trying to destroy humanity at any cost. The second case is a normal political battle. It can and should be fought in The Arena. You can win this through debate and democracy and compromise, along with the humility to listen to them to see if maybe you're the one that's wrong instead of them. There is no moral battle here. They are not bad people who are indifferent about hurting others. They just believe something different is true, or are focused on other things they're not taking into account, and you can find consensus in The Arena. Treating the second case like moral war tears society up and makes it less likely that you solve a solvable problem by acting in good faith.
I see your point, but I think you are oversimplifying a bit. Take censorship as an example. Leftists are doing all they can to stop "hate speech" and "misinformation." How can anyone argue against that? Well, the problem is that they define essentially anything they disagree with as "hate speech." And they themselves are the ones promoting most of the "misinformation," including both Russia hoaxes and many other lies.
The simple fact is that those who want to ban "hate speech" and "misinformation" have no understanding of or concern for free speech and the First Amendment. Banning those things is a violation of free speech --- and banning free speech will lead ultimately to totalitarian tyranny. That's as evil as it gets, so it should be non-negotiable.
But I think you missed what is actually happening in the climate debate. The climate alarmists are trying to use the climate as a lever or pretext to push their leftist political agenda, which will ultimately impoverish most of humanity if it is fully implemented, causing unfathomable suffering.
The issue is not that some people want to destroy the earth and some want to save it. The issue is some are using the issue as a pretext for another objective.
The alarmists are the ones "moralizing" the issue, but a strong case can be made that they are actually the ones pushing an evil agenda. Of course, you can now say that I am "moralizing" the issue as well, but I believe avoiding worldwide suffering *is* a moral issue.
If you haven't seen it yet, please watch the excellent documentary called Climate: The Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM
By the way, my comment above was supposed to be a reply to your reply to Chris Stark, but somehow it got misplaced.
I think I get where you're taking us, rhetorically speaking, and look forward to the next letter on this topic. There's a lot more grey than you're letting on, which I hope you can address. I would argue that if we need to get our heads screwed on and stop moralizing all these non-moral issues and let the Arena thrive once again, we do need to be looking carefully at characterizing the body of debate now polarizing the country.
There's going to be issues which one side feels are 'moral' and perhaps the other side does not. Does that make these non-moral issues? Climate change isn't necessarily a moral issue by your definition, but there are those who feel it is an existential topic and those who feel it is not--and that gap creates a tension that the 'Arena' struggles to deal with. Abortion rights questions tug at one side's definition of what is moral vs the other side's definition of personal rights. 'Culture wars' broadly merits discussion in this context.
There seems a punchline bifurcation in your idea of moralization of politics: is there an undercurrent that the business of running a country (taxes, foreign and domestic policies etc) is being sidelined by non-moral battles and thus neglected to the detriment of the country? Or if these questions are moral in nature (and thus all-or-nothing questions), are the institutions in place capable of helping a nation move forward to resolve these moral questions---and if not, what fixes (e.g. Supreme Court term limits as you proposed a few weeks back) might be things we ought to consider in the name of preserving our republic?
Let me explain what I mean by the climate change example to see if I can make what I mean by this point more clear.
Imagine a hypothetical world in which there were people on one side who actively wanted to destroy the earth's biosphere for some reason. They knew what they were doing. They knew billions would suffer and die from their actions. Maybe they liked the malevolence of it. Maybe they would get rich in their lifetimes and by the time everyone was dead so would they, so they didn't care. This would be a moral issue. One side would be fighting to do something evil and the other side something good.
Now imagine a different hypothetical. Here, the same group was advocating the same policies with the same result. But they didn't believe anyone was going to get hurt. In fact, they thought their ideas would protect the biosphere and save billions of lives. They're not advocating for evil here. You just think they're wrong.
What does the difference matter? In either case, the some policies are getting pushed with the same, you believe, horrific results. But it matters quite a lot.
The first case is a moral battle. It can only be won by total war. The only right thing to do is to defeat the people actively trying to destroy humanity at any cost. The second case is a normal political battle. It can and should be fought in The Arena. You can win this through debate and democracy and compromise, along with the humility to listen to them to see if maybe you're the one that's wrong instead of them. There is no moral battle here. They are not bad people who are indifferent about hurting others. They just believe something different is true, or are focused on other things they're not taking into account, and you can find consensus in The Arena. Treating the second case like moral war tears society up and makes it less likely that you solve a solvable problem by acting in good faith.