>I'm not saying that conservative presidents don't waste huge >sums on their own fiascos (uh, Iraq?) but that the moon >landings were not something to crow about.

The point is that the space race wasn't a "liberal" thing. And it did have a couple of benefits:

1) It gave the USA and USSR a way to compete that wasn't war.

2) It gave a new perspective about how alone we are (see the Christmas Eve 1968 telecast from Apollo 8)

>> Who bought all those VW Beetles and Microbuses?

>Not many people, compared to other makes in the USA.

There were enough that GM came out with the Corvair to compete. The Pinto and Vega were later attempts to capture the lost market.

> By the way, the Beetle only got about 25 mpg, so if it's an > economy car then so is a Lexus Hybrid SUV.

The Beetle's gas economy was good *for its time*.

>> The American people were sold an automobile-centric mindset

>I think the idea that advertisers brainwashed people into >living in suburbs and driving big cars is nonsense.

It's what happened, plus a lot of public policies to back it up. For example, when zoning ordinances are written in such a way that residences are kept entirely separate and distant from shopping centers, sidewalks are not installed and there is no transit, a car becomes necessary just to buy groceries.

>Even worse, US conservatives have made a meal out of >exploiting the tendency of US liberals to paint the average >Joe as a gullible idiot.

You mean by saying what people want to hear?

>Let's assume instead that most people make rational economic >decisions most of the time.

*if* they are presented with *all* the facts and the analysis skills to interpret them.

>> Cars were good, transit was bad.

>That's human nature. Your own car = freedom. Everyone

>would choose the same if they could afford it.

It's not that simple. Your own car does not equal "freedom" if it costs too much to buy, maintain, fuel, park, etc., and you are totally dependent on it.

Ever notice how car commercials show their vehicles zoooming down beautiful empty country roads, not stuck in traffic trying to get to work, home, etc.? They want to sell the *illusion* of freedom, not the reality of transportation tedium.

>If you want to change that behavior the key is to put the >appropriate price on things.

AGREED! Start with how much war-for-oil costs....

>>The government supported the building of the

>>interstates with

>>tax dollars, and the destruction of transit and other

>>alternatives through overregulation and neglect.

>Ok, but the problem is that the results of the last 60 years >have made the USA the wealthiest country in history.

That depends on how you define "wealth". Much of it is on paper. The housing crunch is a perfect example of paper wealth confronting reality.

>So it's hard to argue against what happened, unless we've >been borrowing from the future to pay for it.

That's exactly what we've been doing, through deficit spending, short-term focus and ignoring problems in their early stages.

>>Huh? (See Roosevelt, Theodore)

>> 100+ years ago. Who since then?

>No one, of course, but my point is that "conservation" is

>not fundamentally incompatible with "conservative".

There just aren't any examples for the past *century*....

>>Not exactly. It needs to be solved at all levels.

>Ok, but I'll humbly suggest that this will require listening >to and engaging everyone.

OK then.

How does one engage those who say there is no problem? Or who will only look at short-term, symptom solutions rather than long-term systematic fixes?

Or consider these two ideologies:

Ideology #1 says that "growth = good" and that there is a technological solution to *every* problem. Build more nukes, burn more coal, drill more oil/gas wells, pave more roads, irrigate the desert, genetically modify more plants, have more babies, etc. And that a person with twice as much stuff is twice as happy.

Ideology #2 says that there are limits to growth, and that some problems do not have purely technological solutions. At some point the population will have to stabilize, and the emphasis be put on long-term sustainability, because the earth and its resources are finite. And that a person needs a certain amount of stuff, but beyond a certain point, more stuff is not more happiness.

Who is correct?

>Stereotyping conservatives is working in the opposite >direction, and Leonard's article is a step backward.

Stereotyping "liberals" too..

I submit that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have been twisted to the point of being essentially meaningless today.