Left or Right: Which is more realistic/idealistic

The subject of idealistic and realistic, I think many issues demonstrate the difference between parties, but energy is a good one.

Dems are influenced greatly by their supporters, which are very idealistic, including the environmentalists who insist no drilling take place in any new sensitive area, that conservation will solve the problem, along with futuristic alternative sources of energy.

In contrast, the numbers and projections of alternative energy simply does not support any significant total solution can be achieved quickly. Also, conservation is wonderful, but with increasing populations here and increasing demand abroad, it is clear that conservation is not going to solve the problem. Similarly, Republicans recognize that producing oil from the strategic reserve is simply a temporary, insignificant, and impractical solution, mainly a political move, as is picking on oil futures speculation. Dems apparently have this fantasy that high prices are always due to somebody's greed or speculation or manipulation of the market. They simply cannot bring themselves to the reality that supply and demand is a real thing, that realities are staring us in the face, shorter supplies and greater demands bring higher prices. That is a reality and Republicans see it for what it is.

Reality says short supplies and rising demand is a problem that cannot be solved by political accusations and finger pointing, but it will be solved by increasing supply as well as higher prices stimulating conservation and some movement into other alternative energy use. That is the reality of our economic system, plain and simple.

Idealism and empty hope not supported by actual realistic expectations will do no good. Real problems require realistic solutions, and conservatives are much closer to reality as regards energy prices and supply.

Yes, tax dollars fund the contracts I work on.

I don't work for Halliburton though, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I am a systems engineer for a unnamed defense contractor.

My work doesn't have me working on any bids, I only execute current contract work. Like I said, it benefits both liberals and conservatives equally. It's one of those things that is bigger than party affiliations.

T
K
O

Another example of liberalism vs conservatism as applied to reality and idealism that I noticed on another thread:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=119526&start=110

Carbon credits by planting trees makes a liberal feel good, but has nothing to do with reality, as pointed out by Avatar, which I agree with as well:

Lot of good observations here :conservatives are timid, afraid of change,whoring greed mogers, simplistic.

Seems to me liberals, generally, look at the world as it might idealistically be and ask why not? Nowadays they have tried to rename themselves as "Progressives". Sounds pretty good, after all who would want to stand in the way of progress? Although we should use care here--recently certain communities in Connecticut and even in Harlem NYC have used eminent domain to cast people out of their homes and businesses their families have occupied for generations in the name of progress. One man's Utopia seems another's blight. “Change", when finally defined, is not always good.

Others, some might call them conservatives or pragmatists will look at the world as it is and, given a perceived problem, will set to finding practical solutions. That is, if they feel there really is a problem. Perhaps this is one of the differences. Sometimes idealists are so driven to solve a perceived problem they don’t stop to invoke the law of unintended consequences (Not to mention intolerance towards unbelievers"that’s how important their goal is). An interesting thing happened not to long ago in Maryland. The legislature passed a large tax increase on cigarettes and based a significant portion of their state budget on the expected revenues. They looked at cig sales and calculated the windfall revenues and then based future spending projects on that. Why not? After all what were these nicotine addicted saps going to do, move to another state? Turns out the lawmakers forgot that a lot of Maryland smokers had cars. They just went out of state and stocked up. Revenues plunged and left the lawmakers looking properly stupid. Conservatives all know when you tax anything you get less of it.

Conservatives are greedy. Really? Compared to whom? Well, the wealthy, of course. This makes them somewhat evil. Why? Isn’t it every American’s dream to earn more to provide a better life for himself and his kin, indeed, to become wealthy? At what point-- at what income level does a hard charging competitive American become evil? Well, they should at least pay their fair share of Taxes; problem is the top 1% earners pay taxes that supply over 40% of IRS revenues. Seems they are paying more than their share.

But being truthful, earmarks and pork are more a legislative disease and due less to idealism vs. conservatism. Americans need to educate themselves more about government’s effect on the economy and on markets. Conservatives feel less government intervention the better both will work. Government regulation is necessary at times but must be focused, well thought out, and parsimonious.

JM