I wrote the paragraph (below in red) to explain why the Left support such daft energy policies (like 100% renewables). It was a reply to Dr Jay Lehr's article: "The Real Reason The Left Wants Only Wind And Solar Energy". Dr Lehr implies the Left maliciously want state control of everything. I think he's wrong.
Leftism, of all kinds, is best understood as a massive virtue-signaling exercise. In terms of electricity and energy, those aiming for 100% renewable energy have the highest value in the virtue-signaling utopian stock exchange. Only a small number of leftists understand electricity and energy well and most of them are pro-nukes. The 100% renewable thought leaders do not understand it. They have probably brain-washed themselves by only ever considering ideas and arguments of their fellow loonies. Current energy policies promoted by Democrats are not a plan (in the sense – no one did the numbers), they are an aim, or aspiration to ultimate virtue. Incompetence rules; not maliciousness. So 100% renewables only makes sense as a virtue signal power play.
The paragraph above doesn't make sense until one understands the distinctive character of modern leftist 'virtues'. They certainly aren't virtues I grew up with. Modern leftist virtues are solutions to problems defined by leftists. They see all the following are problems:
- capitalism,
- entrepreneurship (leads to capitalism),
- humanity (cause global warming & over-population),
- white people (oppress people of color),
- biology (oppresses gender-fluidity (biological sex) and causes inequality,
- heterosexuals - oppress LGBTQ
- feminism (oppress trans-people by resisting unisex changing rooms & Transwomen in women's sport),
- liberty, free-speech, equality!.
Wait a minute: liberty, free-speech, equality. Really?!? The new woke arguments are :
- free-speech must be banned for anyone who oppresses another with words. Especially banned for anyone who oppresses an intersectional.
Q: What is oppression? A: It's what the victim feels it is. If it feels like oppression to an intersectional then it is! - equality is a con-trick: intersectional minorities require equity instead. Equity means they get special treatment to redress the implicit (or institutional oppression) they 'experience'.
- liberty - this can lead to entrepreneurship, which can lead to capitalism, ...
In the stock exchange of leftist debate, the point of talking is to demonstrate ones superior ethics over the rest. On the left this has generally been done by taking an extremist, idealist position. The debate becomes one massive virtue signalling contest. The debate can be won by arguing positively for a better idea. It's far more likely for the debate to be won by negative logic; by projecting evil onto one's opponents. That's a very dangerous game - for oneself, as well. It's especially dangerous because modern leftism opposes free-speech for just about everyone except themselves! Leftists don't even know the arguments of the other side who they project as evil: deniers, shills, fascists, TERFs, MCPs, ... Modern leftist debate is an echo chamber of delusions; a long rant against devils, concocted in their own heads.
In modern leftism: censorship and equity are virtues. Equality and free-speech are problems (AKA evils). Perhaps people now understand what I meant by 'incompetence rules' (2nd paragraph above). The kind of reasoning what led to these modern leftist virtues is broken. It is incompetent reasoning.
