# Liberal equivalent of idealogy over practicality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251 "2013-05-01T20:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/81 "2013-05-06T00:20:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The real experts mention family planing, education and the reduction of poverty as the key to make everyone, even immigrants, reduce the number of children they will have. > ] Real experts being anyone who agrees with you of course 😃 Professor Zuckerman is very familiar with the evidence. I also, suspect you’d find “real experts” on Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development. And one of the goals recommended was to _Move toward stabilization of U.S. population._ Given that population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration levels the practical policy response is to reduce immigration. That conflicts with liberal ideology, including yours apparently. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/82 "2013-05-06T06:14:46Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Real experts being anyone who agrees with you of course 😃 Actually many experts out there even agree that the ones you follow are nutty. > [@Chen019](#): > > Professor Zuckerman is very familiar with the evidence. And he is out now, so, so much for that. > [@Chen019](#): > > I also, suspect you’d find “real experts” on Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development. And one of the goals recommended was to _Move toward stabilization of U.S. population._ > > Given that population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration levels the practical policy response is to reduce immigration. That conflicts with liberal ideology, including yours apparently. 🙂 About that, you never came back on a previous discussion to deal with what I posted: the actual final report and there was no reference about preventing immigration but talks about\*\* building a multicultural society\*\* while dealing with the issue, once again, family planing, education and fighting poverty for all were the keys. [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf](http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf) You know, if you do want to show all that your points could be respected to begin with you should had been aware already for years that your information was not the latest one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/83 "2013-05-06T06:21:19Z")
Incidentally, looking at the subject at hand, I know that only a fringe of a fringe of the conservatives would think that your points are anywhere near being practical. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/84 "2013-05-06T14:41:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Oh, gotcha. Lemme try: > -Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. > -Miniature golf. > -Miniature poodles. > -The Spanish-American War. > -Liverwurst. > -Liverpool. > -Pool tables. > -Tabula rasa. > > Am I doing it right? No. Clearly not. That’s just useless noise. You really don’t think that some US atheists go overboard in the pursuit of the separation of church and state? If you knew civil unions for gays could be made law in most states next year, but that same sex marriages might take ten or more, would it be smart or stupid to hold out of the latter? Should have addressed GIGOBuster: No, the IMO the idea that the US could successfully adopt pacifism is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/85 "2013-05-06T15:10:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are missing the point. Let’s do it this way: you seem to believe my statement is wrong. Okay. Then, answer this simple question: _why_ did they choose the way they did? > > For my statement to be wrong there must be no reason—zero, zilch. That these people made a decision in which they see NO benefit? You’ll have to explain that to me. Easy. I bet that they’ve been burned by “energy efficient” or “environmentally friendly” or “Green” products in the past that don’t work as well as the conventional equivalents, which would be the majority of them. In the case of lights, they’re probably thinking they’re the lights that take forever to come on, or that don’t put out enough light. Think of what a huge stink ensued with the first round of low-flow toilets- people refused to buy them for a long time because they underperformed so badly. The environmentally friendly removal of phosphates from dishwasher detergent produced a bunch of detergents that were notably inferior to their phosphate containing predecessors. That sort of thing is why I suspect that to a lot of these people “environmentally friendly” is a sort of code-word for “inferior performance”. More liberal people value the environmental friendliness over the performance, and that’s why you see a divide there- moderate and conservative people value performance more. In all likelihood, it’s not some weird knee-jerk “Can’t let those libruls make me use no enviro bulb!” type thing. Which on reading more, is what **Debaser** is saying. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/86 "2013-05-06T15:30:16Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > You really don’t think that some US atheists go overboard in the pursuit of the separation of church and state? How does that relate to the topic, though? Would they somehow better achieve something else they wanted if they weren’t doing that? > [@](#): > > If you knew civil unions for gays could be made law in most states next year, but that same sex marriages might take ten or more, would it be smart or stupid to hold out of the latter? This question is plainly not relevant anymore. It was an interesting thought experimental a decade ago, maybe. What you can see at this point is that the states that supported civil unions are the same ones that support gay marriage. After all, they’re extremely similar and one was intended as a step toward the other anyway. I don’t think there’s a single state that would have said no to gay marriage and yes to civil unions - I guess New Jersey counts for now because of Christie, or Christie’s national ambitions. ---
**Author:** ![CoastalMaineiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@CoastalMaineiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoastalMaineiac)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/87 "2013-05-06T15:41:51Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > A recent study shows people with moderate or conservative leanings will avoid energy efficient products that are labelled as environmentally friendly. Those same products were almost universally favored when the environment label was left off. > > In the interests of balancing my perspective, can somebody point to a similar behavior among liberals (unnecessarily violating one aspect of their ideology to support another)? > > Here’s the relevant article and study (note: the news site has strong liberal leanings. I’m not aware of any innate bias in the original study) > Summary: [http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-conservatives-dont-like-conserving/](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-comes-to-the-environment-conservatives-dont-like-conserving/) > Full article: [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110) > > P.S. this is more of a GQ-type post, but given the topic, I’m sure it will devolve into the sort political debate more appropriate here. I don’t know if the clichĂ© fits, but I would think something like that is more along the lines of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” _puts on tinfoil hat_ Damned if those libruls are going to tell me what is good for me! I’m going to buy a car that rides like a buckboard, costs me $100 to fill up, and only goes 200 miles between fill-ups; that’ll show 'em! _takes off tinfoil hat_ Yea, I’m pretty sure that cutting off your nose to spite your face is an appropriate clichĂ© here. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/88 "2013-05-06T16:19:11Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > No. Clearly not. That’s just useless noise. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was kind of my point. I think the issues you’re listing might be categorized as “cases in which someone arguably acts in a non-strategic manner.” That’s not what the OP is talking about, though: the OP is talking about cases in which someone lets their distaste for the connotations of one word influence their behavior, when they would not be similarly influenced by synonyms of that word. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/89 "2013-05-06T18:07:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > By personal experience I can grant you this one, but there are many exceptions and there is a measured opposition coming from the right also. > > But before getting to the GMO one has to point out that IMHO the denial of evolution was one big factor why DDT was not controlled properly to prevent insect resistance from becoming one big reason why DDT was almost lost as a tool to control Malaria, the right then just blamed the environmentalists for all the deaths that are taking place because DDT can not be used as before. The myth that they use is to claim that environmentalists were the sole cause for the banning not evolution or other fauna being affected, on top of that, it is also a myth that its use was banned in all situations, DDT is still being used. > > [http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/08/10/denial-of-evolution-can-kill-you/](http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/08/10/denial-of-evolution-can-kill-you/) > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/01/zombie-ddt-myth-will-not-die/](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/01/zombie-ddt-myth-will-not-die/) > > Regarding GMO, I’m on the record of raining scorn on the leftist elements that oppose it, unfortunately for this thread this subject is also full of NIMBY, groups opposed to GMO make a big point of having many independents and conservatives on their side. This can be seen on polls regarding GMO labeling: > > [Center for Food Safety | U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling | | U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling](http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling) > > And, lets not forget that many scientists, that are also mostly from the left side of the isle nowadays, are the biggest defenders of GMO: > > [TV review: Horizon: Science Under Attack and Tool Academy | Television | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/25/horizon-science-under-attack-review) > Indeed, elsewhere, in places like South Korea conservative leaning people are slightly more opposed to biotechnology than left leaning people, now the centrists, those guys are really silly. 🙂 > > [Redirect Notice](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=biotechnology%20korea%20food%20opposed&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdafre.rutgers.edu%2Fdocuments%2Framu%2Fcagm_factor_analysis.pdf&ei=OVOEUdXyGoXG0gGc2IHYAg&usg=AFQjCNEXly1dyPe_iPtxXaIO5YV3LcakyQ&cad=rja) In every post you make that requires you to admit a failing on the left, you inject the fact that the right does it too. Only you guys are much worse and look at all these links I’m going to show you, just so you know that yeah we may have been wrong but look how wrong you are too! Man up, accept your sides responsibility and move the fuck on. It’s actually becoming comical. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/90 "2013-05-06T18:16:22Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Man up, accept your sides responsibility and move the fuck on. > > It’s actually becoming comical. Knock it off or take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/91 "2013-05-06T18:53:35Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > In every post you make that requires you to admit a failing on the left, you inject the fact that the right does it too. Only you guys are much worse and look at all these links I’m going to show you, just so you know that yeah we may have been wrong but look how wrong you are too! Nope, I already reported what I think, so **I already accepted** the \*\*proportional \*\*responsibility the left has. The real world in this case shows that we can not make an absolute left-right division, when NIMBY enters the picture both the left and the right fall as the followers of ignorance. Unless you want to deny what the polls say, so I have to say that I’m sorry that this item does not work as well to apply as a wide brush to the left as you thought it did, me, I deal with the ignorants from the left or the right on a case by case basis, but clearly on the GMO issue there are many from the right and the left that are ignorant and many scientists that are from the left (Paul Nurse is a socialist BTW) that are staunch defenders. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/92 "2013-05-07T02:30:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > About that, you never came back on a previous discussion to deal with what I posted: the actual final report and there was no reference about preventing immigration but talks about\*\* building a multicultural society\*\* while dealing with the issue, once again, family planing, education and fighting poverty for all were the keys. > > [http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf](http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/tsa.pdf) Yes, which rather proves my point this is an example of **liberal ideology trumping practicality.** Again: 1. One of the goals of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development goals recommended was to _Move toward stabilization of U.S. population._ 2. The [US population is growing largely due to immigration levels](http://www.workpermit.com/news/2008-02-14/us/united-states-immigration-drives-future-population-growth.htm). 3. The practical environmental response would be to adjust immigration levels to avoid population growth. Indeed, that was previously the Sierra Club’s position before it was trumped by liberal universalist ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/93 "2013-05-07T02:48:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > How does that relate to the topic, though? Would they somehow better achieve something else they wanted if they weren’t doing that? Yes. For example, the attempt by some atheists to get “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance back in 2003 was a waste of time and led directly partly to reactionary stances on the part of legislators and ordinary citizens. The groups that challenged the wording in court would have done better doing nothing. Same with the atheists who tried to get a cross removed from a memorial site for the WTC. As an atheist, I wish they’d shut up, because they do no good. I like Wendy Kaminer’s distinction between ceremonial deism and publicly funded displays or official sectarian prayers at public events. Challenging the use of the motto “In God We Trust” on US currency has been tried before, removing it won’t happen, and even if it did it will just cost money to issue new currency without the “offending” nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/94 "2013-05-07T03:38:45Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yes, which rather proves my point this is an example of **liberal ideology trumping practicality.** Again: > > 1. One of the goals of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development goals recommended was to _Move toward stabilization of U.S. population._ > > 2. The [US population is growing largely due to immigration levels](http://www.workpermit.com/news/2008-02-14/us/united-states-immigration-drives-future-population-growth.htm). > > 3. The practical environmental response would be to adjust immigration levels to avoid population growth. Indeed, that was previously the Sierra Club’s position before it was trumped by liberal universalist ideology. Nope, not practical as the latest developments in immigration reform show. And once again, many Republicans support the change now so be content with the still fringe opinion points, as that is what it amounts to. The practical point still remains as the last report that you attempted to use as a wedge issue does really say, and it is that we all have to control the population of the country and the planet as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/95 "2013-05-07T05:10:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, not practical as the latest developments in immigration reform show. And once again, many Republicans support the change now so be content with the still fringe opinion points, as that is what it amounts to. The practical point still remains as the last report that you attempted to use as a wedge issue does really say, and it is that we all have to control the population of the country and the planet as a whole. The latest developments in immigration reform show how politics works and the ethnocentrism of Hispanic voters. In any case, the issue of whether it’s practical or not to amnesty existing people in the US is one thing. However, population stablization involves _future_ levels of immigration. How is reducing the level of legal immigration each year not practical? Isn’t greater enforcement a feature of the current legislation being proposed? You simply need to say the limit should be lowered to achieve the goal of population stablization. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/96 "2013-05-07T05:36:27Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The latest developments in immigration reform show how politics works and the ethnocentrism of Hispanic voters. > > In any case, the issue of whether it’s practical or not to amnesty existing people in the US is one thing. However, population stablization involves _future_ levels of immigration. How is reducing the level of legal immigration each year not practical? Isn’t greater enforcement a feature of the current legislation being proposed? You simply need to say the limit should be lowered to achieve the goal of population stablization. It will not work, your position here is still coming from a fringe of a fringe. More so now. So good luck on preventing even more loss of support, we already know that most of the conservatives I respect here are not willing to support what you are trying to push here and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/97 "2013-05-07T15:00:43Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > Yes. For example, the attempt by some atheists to get “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance back in 2003 was a waste of time and led directly partly to reactionary stances on the part of legislators and ordinary citizens. Yes, I remember the Senate passed a meaningless resolution in support of the “under God” wording and the Supreme court didn’t rule on the argument itself for reasons of standing. Did anything that mattered actually happen? Anything that wasn’t already the case? I realize it got some negative PR, but I think most of that came from people who think atheists are the tools of Satan anyway. It doesn’t matter much to me if those people get angry. > [@](#): > > As an atheist, I wish they’d shut up, because they do no good. I don’t think they’re accomplishing much, and some of those protests are dumb. But I don’t think they’re hurting anybody either. > [@](#): > > I like Wendy Kaminer’s distinction between ceremonial deism and publicly funded displays or official sectarian prayers at public events. I’m not familiar - but it probably wouldn’t matter. I think ceremonial deism is a very bad copout. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/98 "2013-05-07T21:31:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not familiar - but it probably wouldn’t matter. I think ceremonial deism is a very bad copout. It’s a matter of practicality. How is ceremonial deism a “very bad” cop out, and who is copping out? I was referring to the toleration of existing ceremonial deism in places where it costs nothing and provides a sop to the theist majority. I’m not advocating, nor, surely, is Kaminer that more instances be adopted. A practical aspect you’re overlooking is the cost of court cases. Some of the cases brought by atheist groups strike me as trivial. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/99 "2013-05-07T21:42:47Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > How is ceremonial deism a “very bad” cop out, and who is copping out? The courts are copping out by refusing to uphold a plain reading of the law and their own case law. Ceremonial deism is basically ‘the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion
 but if they do a little of it it’s OK.’ We should probably drop this, but it just isn’t the kind of thing the OP is asking about. Liberals aren’t rejecting something more practical in support of this; there have to be more religious liberals than atheist liberals anyway. > [@](#): > > A practical aspect you’re overlooking is the cost of court cases. Who cares? The plaintiffs are spending their own money. I’m sure there’s a theoretical cost to the court’s time, but if the courts didn’t think the cases were worth taking they wouldn’t accept them in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/100 "2013-05-07T23:47:02Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. The practical environmental response would be to adjust immigration levels to avoid population growth. Indeed, that was previously the Sierra Club’s position before it was trumped by liberal universalist ideology. 😕[This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_club#Campaigns_and_controversies) would appear to be what you are talking about – but not what you are describing. > [@](#): > > **Population control and immigration** > > Some critics of the Sierra Club have charged that the club’s views on population growth, and the efforts of some club members to restrain immigration, are a continuation of aspects of the Eugenics movement.[41][42] > > In 1969, the Sierra Club published Paul R. Ehrlich’s book, _The Population Bomb,_ in which he said that population growth was responsible for environmental decline and advocated coercive measures to reduce it. Some observers have argued that the book had a “racial dimension” in the tradition of the Eugenics movement, and that it “reiterated many of Osborn’s jeremiads.”[43][44][45] > > In 1978, John Tanton, former Chairman of the National Sierra Club Population Committee and former President of Zero Population Growth, founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[45] > > During the 1980s, some Sierra Club members, including Paul Ehrlich’s wife Anne,[43] wanted to take the Club into the contentious field of immigration to the United States. The Club’s position was that overpopulation was a significant factor in the degradation of the environment. Accordingly, the Club supported stabilizing and reducing U.S. and world population. Some members argued that, as a practical matter, U.S. population could not be stabilized, let alone reduced, at the then-current levels of immigration. They urged the Club to support immigration reduction. The Club had previously addressed the issue of “mass immigration,”[46] and in 1988, the organization’s Population Committee and Conservation Coordinating Committee stated that immigration to the U.S. should be limited, so as to achieve population stabilization.[47] > > Other Sierrans thought that the immigration issue was too far from the Club’s core environmentalist mission, and were also concerned that involvement would impair the organization’s political ability to pursue its other objectives. In 1996, the Board of Directors accepted this latter view, and voted that the Sierra Club would be neutral on issues of immigration.[citation needed] > > The advocates of immigration reduction sought to reverse this decision through the referendum provision of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club. They organized themselves as “SUSPS”, a name originally derived from “Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization” (although that name is no longer used since the Sierra Club objected to infringing the Club’s trademark in the term “Sierrans”). SUSPS and its allies gathered the necessary signatures to place the issue on the ballot in the Club’s election in the spring of 1998. The Board’s decision that the Club would take no position on immigration was upheld by the membership by a three-to-two margin.[citation needed] > > The controversy resurfaced when a group of three immigration reduction proponents ran in the 2004 Board of Directors elections, hoping to move the Club’s position away from a neutral stance on immigration, and restore the stance previously held.[48] Groups outside of the Club became involved, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and MoveOn.[49] Of the three candidates, two (Frank Morris and David Pimentel), were on the board of the anti-immigration group Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America[50][51] and two (Richard Lamm and Frank Morris) were on the board of directors or the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform;[50] both had also held leadership positions within the NAACP.[52] Their candidacies were denounced by a fourth candidate, Morris Dees of the SPLC, as a “hostile takeover” attempt by “radical anti-immigrant activists.”[49][53] The immigration reduction proponents won only 3% of all votes cast in the election,[54] and the controversy subsided. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=6)