Far be it from me to criticize content on our very own site, but this piece makes no sense to me.
For one thing, the four cited cases — Pat Robertson accepting global warming, Frank Luntz accepting global warming, Wal-Mart greening its operations, and the Sierra Club endorsing Lincoln Chafee — have very little in common, politically, economically, or culturally. There’s no reason a position on one would imply a position on another.
For another, just who are these reactionary, progress-inhibiting progressives? It’s telling that not a single person or statement is cited.
For another, how is it possible that environmentalists are both losing miserably and failing to acknowledge their many victories? Which is it?
The whole thing reads like a bank-shot defense of the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Chafee. But if Renstrom and Perkowitz want to defend that, they should defend it directly, as Carl Pope does here and here. I don’t agree with it, but it’s worth discussing.
Simply lumping those who oppose the endorsement in with some vaguely defined set of anti-progress progressives doesn’t do much to advance that discussion.
