The Care Bear Stare

Oh, Global Warming comes to mind.

Yes! Global Warming. The scientific evidence is overwhelming - global warming is happening and human activities are causing it. BUT IT DOES NOT THEREFORE FOLLOW THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT CARBON EMISSIONS TO DEAL WITH IT.

I could cite a dozen reasons: that the Chinese, Indians, and Russians will never, never agree to restrict their emissions and that any efforts on our part will thus be undermined; that shifting away from our carbon-based economy will cost trillions of dollars and take decades, and by the time we get there global warming will be a done deal anyway; that the American people will never agree to pay the associated costs and any gov't that tries to do so will quickly be voted out -

I could go on, but you get the idea. Mention global warming, and everyone gives you the Care Bear Stare. Morons.

Immigration reform.

Here's something that can't be fixed either by Massive Outpourings of Caring, or by Green Lanternism. It's a complex problem that has to be tackled at multiple levels, requiring a realistic look at our current levels of legal immigration as well as illegal immigration estimates; it further demands an approach that will recognize the futility/undesirability of a blanket deportation effort--and yet, maintaining a more or less open border indefinitely clearly isn't a viable option.

Health care reform.

The thought of handing over the entire health care industry to the control and oversight of the federal government is a thought that should be noxious to anyone who has the faintest grasp of what it means to be an American; yet any effort to point that out generally gets met with a nearly-hostile use of the Care Bear Stare, one that fixes you in its gaze and tries to care so much that it hurts...you. Because obviously the only reason anyone wouldn't want massive federal involvement in health care is because they don't CARE about poor people dying because their medications and treatments cost too much. Sigh.

I'm with Erin in agreeing that immigration is a perfect example. On one side you have pro-immigrant folks who believe that legalization will deal with the 14 million illegals and not a person more. On the other side you have people who seem to think you can build a fence and enforce workplace rules and suddenly illegal immigration will drop to zero.

Neither side wants to admit you can't stop illgal immigration and that it is going to continue.

See Heather MacDonald's article on homelessness in LA.

There's an example when practical alternatives are available and the Care Bears insist that starting is better.

But M_David, you point the the "Care Bear Stare" argument yourself. No one who is serious REALLY believes we can build a fence along the Mexican border and that it will stop illegal immigrants. The reality is even those who support such a fence realize it is a symbolic effort that will accomplish little. That's what makes it CBS.

One option, that should be taken more seriously, is use the military to patrol the border. It could be done, but no one is willing to do it. The "progressives" would have a cow.

Only would work if they had "shoot to kill" orders, now are you ready to go that far?

The "Care Bear Stare", from where I stand, boils down to the idea that no problem is unsolvable, given sufficient political will. If you (and enough people around you) "care" enough about Problem A, a solution will somehow present itself. Contrariwise, failure to solve Problem A doesn't necessarily mean that Problem A is unsolvable, just that you (or society, or the government) didn't _care_ enough to solve it.

So whether something falls into the "Care Bear Stare" category depends, at least in part, on how you view the world around you. Not your take on politics, but on _reality_, i.e., the nature of people, government, society, etc.

For example, if one believes that victory (however defined) in Iraq is not possible (for whatever reason), the argument that victory _is_ possible given unlimited political will on the part of the American populace is obviously an example of CBS. The accusation of CBS is not only a function of one's opponents, but also one's view on whether or not the Iraq war is winnable.

On problems where there is broad agreement regarding the feasibility of various solutions (if any), it's easy to identify those utilizing CBS. On problems where such broad agreement _does not exist_ - e.g., a fence or employer sanctions or amnesty WRT immigration - the concept of CBS isn't quite so useful, since disagreement about the underlying facts obscures whether one's opponents are truly employing CBS, or are simply disagreeing with your take on reality.

I have some common ground with Erin on immigration? Sacre bleu!

(Even if I wasn't French on the "favorite European" quiz ...)

The thought of handing over the entire health care industry to the control and oversight of the federal government is a thought that should be noxious to anyone who has the faintest grasp of what it means to be an American; yet any effort to point that out generally gets met with a nearly-hostile use of the Care Bear Stare, one that fixes you in its gaze and tries to care so much that it hurts...you. Because obviously the only reason anyone wouldn't want massive federal involvement in health care is because they don't CARE about poor people dying because their medications and treatments cost too much.

That's not a 'care bear stare', not as Rod explained it. A care bear stare is when people just look at the existing health care system and think if we will it, people will stop dying because of insurance companies, and health care prices will magically go down.

OTOH, absolutely no one asserts that the government paying for health care would not 'work'. (What's going to stop it, medical professionals not accepting checks from the government?) Even opponents don't claim it 'won't work', they, like you, assert it's not American or there will be 'massive federal involvement in health care' or that it will cause economic collapse or spiraling upward medical costs or some other problems, not that it 'won't work', because the government is clearly physically able of paying medical bills.

Incidentally, those on the left who claim we know how to solve many problems but don't have the will to fix them sometimes are right. For example, there's a rather trivial solution for good 50% of the homeless, the ones that are psychologically unable to care for themselves and wander around babbling in the streets. Reagan put them on the streets with the closing of mental health facilities, we could take them back off the street by reopening them.