Last week, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared “Cap-and-trade is dead.” There is no way the Senate will pass the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that passed the House. But Sen. Graham is working with Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) on an alternative proposal to control greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of alternative energy sources. ClimateWire describes the outlines of their approach:
The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft to be circulated this week starts with an overall goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gases by 2020 in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels. . . .
Rather than include all major industrial sources of greenhouse gases in one broad economywide cap-and-trade system, the Senate trio will propose different types of limits for different sectors of the economy, beginning with electric utilities and then turning later to manufacturers such as chemical plants and pulp and paper mills.
“The bottom line with utilities is they’ll assume a compliance obligation from day one of the program,” the Senate staffer said, adding that no decisions have been made on how to allocate valuable emission allowances to the power companies except to incorporate an industry recommendation to shuttle revenue toward consumers to help pay for higher energy bills.
Transportation fuels can expect a carbon tax that rises based on the compliance costs faced by the other major emitters. Several major oil companies, including Shell Oil Co., ConocoPhillips and BP America, floated the original idea on Capitol Hill, and the Senate trio has evolved their plan by funneling revenue toward transportation projects, reducing fuel consumption and lowering domestic reliance on foreign oil. The Highway Trust Fund is also a potential recipient of the carbon tax revenue, Senate aides said.
Manufacturers would face a series of greenhouse gas limits after power plants, but talks are still ongoing over when the phase-in begins and what specific industries fall into the suite of restrictions.
The senators plan to present several other energy-related proposals to their colleagues, including ideas to promote the development of nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired power plants. Agreements are also in sight on how to incorporate agriculture and forestry offsets into the mix, as well as other cost-containment mechanisms to brace industry and consumers from higher prices.
Based on the outlines reported in the press, Ron Bailey thinks the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman approach “may be good politics, but it is bad economics.” According to Bailey,
The virtue of creating an artificial market applying to all greenhouse gas emissions is that market participants can figure out the most efficient way to cut emissions among themselves. Isolating favored segments means that market participants will not be able to find the least expensive ways to cut carbon emissions, raising the overall price of energy more than it would otherwise be. So the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill does not initially appear to be much of an improvement on the Waxman-Markey horror.
I think this is right. Bailey prefers an alternative proposal.
Assuming that carbon emissions pose a significant danger to the global climate, there is a much better proposal (cheaper) circulating on Capitol Hill: the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act. The CLEAR act is a short, sweet bill introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). The CLEAR Act sets a gradually declining cap on carbon dioxide emissions (20 percent below 2005 by 2020). It limits carbon dioxide emissions by requiring producers and importers of coal, natural gas, and oil to buy permits at a monthly auction for each ton of carbon in the fuels they sell in the U.S. The requirement would apply to 2,000 to 3,000 fossil fuel producers and importers.
Unlike Waxman-Markey or the new Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal, the CLEAR Act would largely avoid picking winners and losers among technologies, special interest groups, or industries. Seventy-five percent of the proceeds from the auction would be rebated on a per capita basis in equal monthly lump sum payments. Cantwell and Collins estimate that 80 percent of consumers would incur no net costs while the top 20 percent in income would see less than a 0.3 percent decrease in their incomes. The remaining 25 percent of the auction revenues would be used to fund energy research and development, adaptation to climate change, and help workers who lose their jobs because of higher energy prices.
Of course, failing to rebate these auction revenues somewhat undercuts the claim by Cantwell and Collins that they are not picking winners and losers. In addition, it would be more economically efficient (and cheaper) to rebate the entire amount rather than let Congress allocate money to favored projects. . . . But if we must do something—and it seems that Congress and the president believe that we must—the CLEAR Act, clocking in at 39 pages, has more appeal than Waxman-Markey’s 1,200. Sometimes simpler is better.
I largely agree, but believe that a revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as those proposed by Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) and Arthur Laffer or NASA’s James Hansen are better still. Such proposals would be more efficient, more transparent, and easier to implement. The purported policy benefits of cap-and-trade over a carbon tax are illusory — and now it appears cap-and-trade’s purported political advantage is evaporating as well. Perhaps there’s still hope for a rational climate policy.
[Note: In anticipation of the inevitable comments that the truly rational climate policy is to do nothing, I think there are plenty of independent reasons to prefer taxing consumption over taxing income even if one is unconcerned about carbon dioxide and other emissions.]
Constantin says:
No, the anticipated comments are the way to go. Do nothing. Constantin(Quote)
Another Old Navy Chief says:
But I don’t see anything in these schemes that says they are going to reduce or quit taxing income. Instead they are adding more taxes based on consumption. And let’s not fool ourselves into believing that only the “evil businesses” will be paying these taxes. They will quite rightly pass the cost along to the consumer. Another Old Navy Chief(Quote)
Nobody At All says:
I’ve read (on Breakthrough, if I remember correctly) that 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 is not CLEAR’s cap, but is its target. CLEAR’s cap is a declining year-on-year cap that is reportedly somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% below 2012 levels by 2020. Nobody At All(Quote)
Glenn Bowen says:
Another tax gimmick– a tax, a tax, a tax. Enough already. More of my income shot... forever.
...blah, blah, blah, dee blah.
They wouldn’t be blowing smoke up our cans to get a bill passed, ya think? In the vernacular, I don’t think Cantwell and Collins, or anyone else involved in this, know their asses from a hole in the ground– why would they?
What a load of gobbledygook numbers, percentages, estimates, etc... as usual. Glenn Bowen(Quote)
grrizzly says:
Big Carbon has invested so much in this scam. Though enormous profits that could be confidently predicted only recently aren’t likely to realize, they still hope to cover at least the costs of their rent-seeking activities. grrizzly(Quote)
Instapundit » Blog Archive » CAP-AND-TRADE IS DEAD: Long live cap-and-trade?… says:
Bill Woods says:
How does ‘Big Carbon’ benefit from anything that puts a price on emitting carbon? Currently the price is $0; can’t we all agree that this is too low? Bill Woods(Quote)
Bruce Hayden says:
Yeh, let’s start with a lot of contra-factual assumptions. Maybe it would also be helpful to assume that the Earth was flat, the Sun rotates around the Earth, etc. And then let’s look at some of the program solutions that are consistent with these assumptions.
Sure, I will admit, under those assumptions, including that the Earth is flat, the Sun rotates around it, and CO2 is bad, that this is a better solution than Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade. Heck, I would probably admit that even if the Earth were to rotate around the Sun, instead of the other way around.
I think that they would do better to accept that this assumption about CO2 being evil for the environment has taken major beatings over the last five or so months, and that it would be fiscally irresponsible, esp. in the midst of the largest recession of the last 60 or so years, to rush ahead at this point an implement any legislation that would negatively affect the economy to the extent that this would. Especially, given the time lines here, it would be far better for the American economy to do nothing here for a couple of years, and let the “science” involved work its way out during that time. Indeed, you almost get the impression that the call to arms here is in direct reaction to the disintegration of the “consensus” concerning CO2. Bruce Hayden(Quote)
Curious passerby says:
AGW is a fraud, didn’t you read it in the (British) papers? Even Phil Jones admitted as much to the BBC.
I know, we’ve invested so much in these sack cloth outfits it’d be a shame not to wear them. Curious passerby(Quote)
grrizzly says:
In my defintion Big Carbon includes those who benefit from global-warming fearmongering not those who emit carbon dioxide.
Absolutely not. Show your proof. grrizzly(Quote)
RC says:
Currently, the average person produces almost a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide per year through exhalation, at a cost of $0. Can’t we all agree this is too low?
People should be taxed for producing this “toxin.” I’d say $10 per pound would be reasonable. We can call it a “life tax.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.
/sarcasm RC(Quote)
ee says:
Before any new taxes are imposed, and any further impediments are placed in the way of growing the US economy, the burden of proof has to be met that this will make a material difference.
Absent China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. agreeing to voluntarily and severely limit their economic growth, anything the US does or doesn’t do won’t make a material difference to global results. These countries are not going to agree to stay poor, certainly not on a “just in case” basis. Its just: Not. Going. To. Happen.
Its therefore very hard to believe that this entire exercise is any more than a way to increase taxes and government control of economic activity. The opportunities for Congressional graft and malfeasance are incredible.
It looks more and more like a power grab than anything else. ee(Quote)
Kazinski says:
Very few people are going to object to a tax that falls fairly across the broad spectrum of consumers and businesses that is revenue neutral. And any tax that promotes energy efficiency can’t be all bad either.
But any tax that eviscerates what is left of our manufacturing base by allowing China and India to use cheaper coal, as well as their cheaper labor won’t help at all. We also need to allow the Met (British Meteorological Service) to recalculate the surface temperature record in order to recalibrate how much warming there really is. As Phil Jones said in his parliamentary testimony this week, his latest research shows that 40% of the warming previously ascribed to green house gases is actually due to urban heat island effect (UHI). This of course confirms the the informed speculation by Anthony Watts, peer reviewed studies by Ross McKitrick and Roger Pielke Sr. showing a significant contribution to the temperature signature from urbanization and aerosols, and the calculations of Richard Lindzen showing a much lower sensitivity of the climate, based on the satellite record, to greenhouse gasses. Kazinski(Quote)
Mike McDougal says:
I’m in the top 20% of income earners. I object to yet another tax. While I’m at it, I object to all the deductions I can’t take (e.g., student loan interest) that serve to increase my effective tax rate. Mike McDougal(Quote)
Constantin says:
I object to any tax increase, for any reason. Find the money somewhere else. I’m tapped out. Constantin(Quote)
Kazinski says:
I am above the 20% percentile, and like most of us in the higher percentiles, I used to be in the lowest 10% too, but if you make that much money you should be able to read what I said a little better:
I realize there are many that would like to impose tax upon tax on the producers in this economy, but a tax that merely supplants other taxes like the payroll or income taxes that falls evenly on energy users, is not going to fall unfairly on the productive sector of the economy. Kazinski(Quote)
Frank Ch. Eigler says:
“Seventy-five percent of the proceeds from the auction would be rebated on a per capita basis in equal monthly lump sum payments.”
So the CLEAR act also doubles as one big wealth redistribution scheme (from above-average to below-average energy users). Frank Ch. Eigler(Quote)
orca says:
It’s kinda like the 5 cent bottle return fee.
There’s a way to get your money back if you put in a little effort. orca(Quote)
“Cap-and-Trade Is Dead” — Long Live Cap-and-Trade? | Liberal Whoppers says:
pmorem says:
“revenue-neutral”
Could you please cite an example in the history of this country, excluding the last 10 years, where a federal tax has not exceeded its original authority or scope?
I exclude the last 10 years because such taxes have not yet had a chance to ripen. pmorem(Quote)
ahem says:
The whole premise of this bill is fraudulent. ahem(Quote)
JohnMc says:
“I think there are plenty of independent reasons to prefer taxing consumption over taxing income even if one is unconcerned about carbon dioxide and other emissions.”
Why is there a presumption that there needs to be a tax at all? Whenever this is some problem, the first reaction from the folks in power is tax it. That kind of thinking needs to stop.
Adler, defend your need to tax first. Which you have not done. JohnMc(Quote)
Spendulus says:
“Seventy-five percent of the proceeds from the auction would be rebated on a per capita basis in equal monthly lump sum payments.”
They would take away our money, then give it back to to selected people, while moving industry to China and India — where carbon is not and will not be taxed.
CO2 emissions are just moved around,from the US to China and India.
So they want us to pay to cause our industry to move to China and India? Spendulus(Quote)
Travis says:
Carbon emission levels... prior-year targets — these are the wrong metrics for the entire discussion. Raising taxes on carbon output as contemplated in these political bills:
- raises the cost of energy production for our manufacturers
- lowers the disposable income of American consumers
These are both big negatives for the real metric: NET job growth. Absent real net job growth (not just green jobs), all of this is academic. An America that isn’t working, DOESN’T WORK. 8%+ unemployment undermines everything, from national security to debt reduction to health care to state budgets to personal freedom. If that isn’t clear by now, it never will be. Travis(Quote)
cfbleachers says:
Look, I’m against pollution, but it should be apparent by now to any thinking person, that the alleged tie of carbon emissions to alleged AGW is based on rather thin gruel.
We don’t need more taxes on “the top X percent” of people. We don’t need more reason to hang an albatross around the necks of those who could enhance our energy independence, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil producers.
We don’t need to retard our ability to produce and sell energy to other nations. We need to fix the economy, stabilize jobs, reduce taxes and limit government interference, size, scope and hyper-stifling of entrepreneur ism in this country.
Get their hands out of our pockets and stop making excuses for this “smaller invasion” being so much better than the “larger invasion” of our liberties and independence.
I get a laugh when it is claimed that “this energy group” (usually with a snarky appellation attached such as “cabal”) is “paying for” or is “behind” the study that says something in opposition to the “green” position. Of course, that corporation is using private funds to balance the position that is being paid for by the government, directly or indirectly. The quality of the advocacy doesn’t seem to be markedly better or more free from fraudulent claims and misrepresentations simply because the government is on the side of one of the parties.
We can no longer merely accept “the state’s position”, ipso facto as genuine, well-researched, pure of motive...or even fundamentally true or accurate.
A government grab at banking and finance, at the auto industry, at the health care industry, at the insurance industry and at the energy industry does not sit well with me. It’s damn frightening to tell the truth. And just because one of the grabs is “more palatable” because it’s less invasive....today , is not much comfort. cfbleachers(Quote)
anon says:
Regardless whether the correct action is to do nothing, cap and trade is inevitable. Caring for the environment has nothing to do with this — as always, it is all about the incentives (in this case, staying in office and doling out rents to rent-seekers).
Just like ethanol mandates, CO2 legislation is here to stay notwithstanding zero to negative environmental impact. The only unknown is the form of CO2 regulation.
Best, of course, is a revenue-neutral pigouvian tax (Inglis’ plan). For the same reasons as above, that ain’t gonna happen (no rents to dole out).
Second-best is a revenue-neutral cap and trade with full refunds. For the same reasons as above, that ain’t gonna happen.
Third-best is the CLEAR Act. The only question is whether it gives enough rent-granting powers to the legislators and agencies to make it worth their while. If they can’t skim enough off the top to hand to their friends, it won’t pass.
Plain horrible is any 2,000 page bill. The only question is whether the rents outweigh the public outrage. That’s the trade-off — outrage, or overflowing riches for campaign contributions / soft money / PACs.
Will the public forget before the next election? The money sure won’t. anon(Quote)
Blogassault says:
I think it is pretty clear that the whole man-made global warming hysteria was just that; hysteria. After all that has been revealed, why is there even a discussion about this? We have been lied too by climate scientists and politicians are professional liars. So let’s wait on all of this climate crap and trade business until we get some accurate science on the whole deal. Blogassault(Quote)
Koblog says:
Algore has really been effective: his lies have penetrated to the point we assume he is correct, leading very smart people to debate here how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
Repeat after me:
“Carbon is our friend, not our enemy”
“CO2 is not a poison”
“Man-caused Global Warming is a hoax, scam and fraud”
“We are $14,000,000,000,000 in debt”
“Democrats are spending $2,000,000,000,000 more than we take in”
“The vast majority of states are broke”
“Government is the problem, not the solution” Koblog(Quote)
Art Ford says:
Two principal problems with present carbon legislation being considered:
1.) They won’t increase U.S. energy “independence.” Only ‘nukes-now’ will do that, and that ain’t about to happen.
2.) They won’t impact global temps. Depending on the assumptions, it would take 40 to 55+ years of zero (Yep, we mean ‘ZERO’) world-wide CO2 emissions to eliminate a 1-degree Celsius increase. A 20% or 50% U.S. reduction of CO2 will accomplish squat in terms of global temperatures. Here’s an example of the plain & simple science calculations of CO2 and temps......
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/the-futility-of-copenhagen-preventing-future-global-temp-increase-of-only-1c-cant-be-done-its-scient.html Art Ford(Quote)
BobC says:
I have a serious question. I am sure it has come up before in threads like these, but I assure you my intentions are different. I am not trying to produce some “AH-HAA” moment.
I am curious how much overlap there is on other controversial science theories. So to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory? BobC(Quote)
Frank Ch. Eigler says:
“So to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory?”
... thus dragging a thread about legislation way way off topic. Frank Ch. Eigler(Quote)
Carl The EconGuy says:
Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are full of Crap and Tirade. Carl The EconGuy(Quote)
egd says:
I think I see where the problem is. egd(Quote)
BobC says:
I think it is important.
I havn’t been here long, but it seems like the correlation between moral/political views and a similar interpretation of the law is really close to one. It is what fascinates me about this place. A place where it seems law would stand on its own has a lot of people interpeting law through their moral compass. It is quite different from my training in economics, where I am suppose to be as objective and counterintuitive as possible. BobC(Quote)
WJ says:
What do you all think is going to happen if the USA ARTIFICIALLY increases the cost of energy? Do you think that companies that use energy in significant amounts are going to be more likely to invest in the USA and hire workers here?
Something like this is just shooting ourselves in the foot (again). WJ(Quote)
Travis says:
Govt has found a way to tax Evolution, via Carbon/Cap/Climate crap. The result will be migration and potential catastrophic extinction of beneficial species known as Americans.
Big Bang is the sound of exploding debt tearing our country asunder.
Law does not “stand on its own”. There are always consequences. Some unintended, but in this case, I am more concerned about the intended consequences of those who would levy these laws on our society and economy. This is quite real, my friend. Travis(Quote)
Fat Man says:
All cap and trade proposals are scams designed to give former sub prime mortgage brokers something to trade. The only proposal that would make any sense would be one that imposes the permitting on firms that first sever fossil fuels from the earth or import them. That type of proposal would be the equivalent of a carbon tax, and would be much easier to administer.
However, for cogent reasons expressed above, a carbon tax would be economic suicide. So a better proposal is to beat Lindsay Graham until he wipes that dreadful smirk off of his face. Fat Man(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
The key is to have principled stands that do not involve discussion. “I’m against any taxes,” “I’m against any lowering of our energy consumption,” “I’m against anything that mentions global warming.”
If you want to seem at least a bit engaged, you can mix in some talking points about why your principled stand is against something evil. e.g. “I pay enough taxes!” “Global Warming is a total lie!” “Al Gore is fat!” “SOCIALISM!”
This is how you win debates, by not engaging anyone, opponent or otherwise.
Similarly, it is how I win at golf — by not playing, and thus declaring myself superior. Sarcastro(Quote)
Charlie says:
Argggh! What is it with Lindsey Graham?
The one sure result of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere is that plant life thrives in proportion, as is clear from satellite sensing.
80% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 comes at a mere 20 ppm. It’s a logarithmic scale. If you doubled the CO2 concentration from the present 385 ppm, you’d increase the greenhouse effect a percent or two, but plants would love us for it.
It’s aerosols we should be concerned about, including plain carbon dust. Charlie(Quote)
JEM says:
The whole thing is a ghastly joke.
Someone needs to stop Graham and the rest of these poltroons ASAP.
We’re watching ‘climate science’ unravel right down to the raw data, not only is there no proof of a CO2 linkage to climate change but even Phil Jones is admitting that urban heat island effect accounts for 40% of the warming they’ve seen in their own numbers. And we know their ‘adjusted’ numbers are a joke.
Start over. Start over, with an open and honest validation of raw temperature data before anyone — scientist or politician — can attempt to draw scientific conclusions or policy goals from it. JEM(Quote)
PubliusFL says:
Assuming that requiring a reduction in CO2 emissions does not result in lower total production. If that’s the case, though, and producers can produce just as much just as cheaply without emitting as much CO2, why aren’t they already doing it? Being “green” is a selling point. PubliusFL(Quote)
grrizzly says:
I agree that there is an important connection between the evolution theory and anthropogenic global warming. But I suspect my take on it won’t be to your liking. The “educated class” believes in the AGW and evolution for the same reason, namely that all other smart, educated people believe in it. The key word here is “believe.” Few people studied biological, paleontological, or geological arguments in favor of the evolution theory. Fortunately, the evolution theory is not very important in its practical applications and as far as I know correct. On the other hand, the AGW has drastic implications for humans and polar bears and failed to make predictions that were later verified. But the “educated class” doesn’t have ability to distinguish between testable scientific theories and theories that only claim to be scientific. I’d go further and say that the “educated class” has discredited itself by falling for a junk science. And much of the blame should go to the role that the evolution theory plays in the Western society. It is not used to illustrate how the scientific method works; instead it serves only as a cultural marker. grrizzly(Quote)
Calderon says:
Hey, it works for pro-choice advocates and worked to a substantial extent for anti-death penalty advocates. I’m sure there are some other successful examples we could come up with.
(And just for the record, I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty) Calderon(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Untrue, Calderon! Only one side has knee-jerk partisans! Sarcastro(Quote)
kim says:
We cannot make informed and wise policy decisions without knowing the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. We do not know that figure.
The global climate models have a figure for climate sensitivity which is too high and that is why they are failing. We cannot calculate the sensitivity from the historical record without complete understanding of the natural cycles, and an accurate temperature record, neither of which we have now. Recent and repeated calculation of climate sensitivity from observations rather than from models is showing a low sensitivity, meaning that anthropogenic CO2 may have a small effect.
Given the recent unsettledness in the science, we have time to wait until we have settled the sensitivity issue. To do otherwise is foolish, because policy based on present knowledge is almost guaranteed to be wrong.
==================== kim(Quote)
Nobody At All says:
I’d agree. Nobody At All(Quote)
kim says:
Because of the phases of the oceanic oscillations we can expect a couple of decades of global cooling. If the sun gets into the act with another Grand or Lesser Minimum we may cool for a century. I find it hard to believe that we will not have figured out the climate sensitivity by then, and, if CO2 is a problem, the time to act to control carbon is when we start warming again.
In the meantime, the small effect of CO2 on temperature, and the large effect it has on food production will keep millions from freezing and starving to death.
=============== kim(Quote)
wfjag says:
And, exactly what about this surprises you? You’re looking at discussions primarily by lawyers, who as a group, have little to no education, training or experience in Science, Technology, Engineering or Math (STEM) subjects, opining on STEM subjects.
Note: Most people in Congress, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch are also lawyers, and are likewise generally STEM-illiterate. And, you wonder why workable solutions to even simple problems are seldom found? wfjag(Quote)
Victor Erimita says:
[Note: In anticipation of the inevitable comments that the truly rational climate policy is to do nothing, I think there are plenty of independent reasons to prefer taxing consumption over taxing income even if one is unconcerned about carbon dioxide and other emissions.]
Aside from the question of why we need more and more and more taxes, why would you impose a consumption tax on just one arbitrarily selected commodity? Why would you not spread a consumption tax broadly? This statement amounts to a “never mind” the fact that carbon is not a pollutant and needs no curtailing, because we should have consumptiojn taxes instead of income taxes anyway (ignoring that we will of course now have both.)
This article demonstrates that it will take a long time for the debunking of the AGW myth to penetrate the years of effort by entrenched interests and gullible believers to propagandize an entire generation. Grasping that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the concern about its production is entirely unnecessary is a major change of worldview for very many. It shakes the very foundations of an entire belief system. For awhile, people will simultaneously hold two positions: that AGW has been debunked, and that we have to curb carbon emissions anyway. This article seems to be an example of that. Wake up! Gaia is dead! Victor Erimita(Quote)
Don Rodrigo says:
No Cap & Trade or Son of Cap & Trade.
Start drilling instead. Don Rodrigo(Quote)
Harry Iraethin says:
My reaction to this is that if I had a bunch of venture capital, I’d be starting to think about building big power plants in Mexico, close enough to the border to economically export electricity to the USA. Harry Iraethin(Quote)
Ryan Brumett says:
As a Newbie, I’m always do a search on the internet for reports that could help me. Many thanks Ryan Brumett(Quote)
Calderon says:
Well, my point was less about both sides doing it than giving a couple of examples where advocates were successful by taking principled stands and refusing to engage in serious discussion with the other side. You and I may prefer that “winning debates” happens only when people engage in reasoned arguments with the other side, but there are at least a couple of examples of advocates “winning debates” in the sense of their policies becoming law by repeating slogans based on unyielding principles without seriously engaging the other side. Calderon(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
[Alas true, Calderon. People are amenable to propaganda. But at least I get to mock the propagandists!] Sarcastro(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Word. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)