Perhaps an odd take on modern "conservatism"

Daily Canuck reprints a column by Eric Hogan about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's new foray into comedy.

First he addresses Ann's recent article on global warming, and in his analysis Hogan reveals his belief that economic growth is actually worse than a couple degrees temperature increase:

Does she really want a moral debate over which scenario has the bigger death toll? Curbing human consumption and the output of carbon emissions, or the continued acceleration of global warming?
Had he looked into the article, he would have seen the strong contention that reversing this "continued acceleration" comes with a very real and a very extraordinarily large price tag. Coulter has looked at it. Columnists such as Colby Cosh have looked at it. Apparently Hogan was out sick that day.

Secondly, Hogan quotes a Guardian columist (snicker) who writes: “This is why conservatives and satire just don’t go; you can’t be subversive and want to preserve the status quo.” Um, excuse me? Just off the top of my head, Coulter has advocated removing the Department of Education, the U.S. invasion of a half dozen rogue nations around the globe, total bans on abortion, and got her start by fighting for the impeachment of a sitting President. Exactly what part of all of that does Stephanie Merritt (and by extension Eric Hogan, and by extension Daily Canuck) believe is wanting to preserve the status quo?

Looking at this from my own perspective, if somebody talks about me "wanting to live in the past" or some such numb-brained mischaracterization of my conservatism, I remind them that I want to redraw the map of the entire f***ing continent. This doesn't strike me as a particularly "50s perspective". As a result, this sort of pop-psychology inspired analysis of ideological comedic talents falls flat on its ass.

Bonus mischaracterization:
The world’s scientific community is unanimous: global warming will wreak havoc with heat waves, mass flooding, starvation and super-storms – the projected death toll is in the millions.
The comments section of this Accidental Deliberations post features a comment from me (the first one) noting a curious thing about this "unanimous" proclaimation.


Anonymous said...

"he would have seen the strong contention that reversing this "continued acceleration" comes with a very real and a very extraordinarily large price tag."

Yes some policy to reduce green house gases will require a very real and large price tag, but the costs of doing nothing could be much higher

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.