No situation is unchanging, this includes politics in CO. What does unforced change look like (with an extension to EV's)? Lastly, things are heating up in rural America.
No situation is ever static, this includes Colorado politics.
The op ed below is nominally about what will likely be a rift in Democrat politics in Colorado. Warms my heart to read it, because I think it will ultimately be to the good of all in this state.
One of the subtexts, however, is about the changing nature of people's politics. I pulled the intro and attached it as a screenshot to give you an example of what I mean. My examples are is a little bit less famous but just as important.
Think about the young people you know. How have they changed in terms of their priorities as they aged? As they had children of their own?
Exactly.
Nothing makes one reconsider the wisdom of "compassionately" giving away their money like having to pay a mortgage while funding childcare and medical care for those same kids.
Nothing says "it's my money and not the government's" quite like the damned waterheater breaking down while the young ones need new shoes.
What I mean is, while it won't hit us all the same, growing up hits us all and forces us to reconsider what we thought as kids.
And the lesson here goes beyond simple joy at seeing the political fortunes of those who made your life harder decline.
This goes to hope and opportunity. Hope that, as the left-leaning, idealistic young'uns that moved here and shifted the politics so much in this state age, Colorado's politics will come back to the center somewhat. Opportunity in that as they do, someone will be there, who has lived longer and knows what it's like can be there to help guide them.
The trick (and it's one I've found to be the trick to a great many things in life), is to hang on long enough for things to change. The trick is to not quit the game.
We, none of us, know the future. We don't know where things will be. They may not ever look like they did in the past, but that doesn't mean that they'll stay the way they are forever now. No situation is static.
If you've withdrawn from speaking up because you thought it futile, I want to encourage you to speak up again. Get active again.
You may not see immediate results. You may not convince every other person. You won't save the world and set everything to rights.
That doesn't matter, but your joining the conversation matters.
Start small and start local. Pick one thing and make that a focus if you're short on time. Have realistic expectations of both what you can accomplish and your energy level.
If I can help you get started or help you with ideas, please reach out.
https://denvergazette.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-the-growing-rift-on-colorado-s-left/article_5f31c209-7bd8-5919-8cf6-ae42a93c003a.html
Related:
To help give you ideas and/or inspiration to start speaking up if you haven't yet.
A really quick and simple way to start is to think over a letter to the editor for your local paper.
I recently did one on property taxes (linked below).
Good way to have a "conversation" with local people that you might not otherwise get to speak to (or a way to do it if you're not too big on public conversations).
https://www.journal-advocate.com/2023/09/12/open-letter-on-property-tax-increases/
When change does happen, what does it look like? Said another way, how is progress made?
What do you think?
On a surface level, the article below is about a laundromat and the owner's struggle to convince his customers to follow him on his water saving journey.
On a deeper level, however, it touches on a theme which I have thought about recently.
I think it's easy for some that welcome and expect change (of whatever flavor) to see those that resist it as being luddites (here I need to note I'm using the word luddite loosely to encompass any that resist change of any sort, not just technological).
After all, I think that those who welcome a change see it as needed progress, not merely as a change.
Conversely, there are those that oppose change for any reason whatsoever. For some, I am thinking the opposition is related to the changed proposed. If you like, say, gas stoves, you'd resist attempts to make them harder to get. I'm convinced, however, that some of the resistance is not so much to change itself, as to the pace and manner in which that change happens.
And maybe that's the key here. Maybe that's the answer to the question "how do we negotiate these sorts of things without driving people into their opposite camps?"
Many people that have commented on my writing and many people I talk to are not opposed to things like low water use washing machines.
They're not opposed to things like electric lawnmowers. Most people I see are converting as we speak.
The opposition comes for some in the way that change is made and in the pace of that change.
Do we consider all the different motivations that might lead to change and are we honoring them?
Are we pushing too quickly on change?
Are we "pushing" in the sense of making people accept a change that they didn't participate in deciding on?
Are we "pushing" in the sense that we define one and only one direction that this change can go in?
I can tell you that my answer is no to the first and yes to the remaining 3.
I personally am open to change. I am open to different approaches. If it would be an apples to apples shift and if I had the money, I'd buy an EV. I own a front loading washer. By this point, I have little to no lawn left. It's either producing food or it's xeriscaped.
And a lot of the things I've done at my house were motivated not by climate or environmental altruism. They were motivated by taste (get it? I mean here in both senses), or by a desire to save money.
What I want is thought going into the process. I want the constraints in my life to be honored. I want freedom of choice. I want my opinions on the direction we go in to be honored for the equally considered, thoughtful, and meaningful things they are; my disagreement with "progressive" approaches to change or the associated timetable do not negate my viewpoint or the "rightness" of my thought.
What do you think? I'd love to hear your comments. Please feel free to add them below.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/06/colorado-water-conservation-laundromats/
Related:
An interesting thought occurred after writing this post. Let me pull a quote from the article I used:
“'The most environmentally friendly, sustainable behavior that we could engage in as consumers is to just consume less,' Van Boven [Leaf Van Boven, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at CU Boulder] said, 'because there's really no way to produce things that we consume without having some kind of environmental impact.'”
Consuming less.
Think that over in light of the Fed's and the State's efforts to get you to trade in your current car for an EV.
From a greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicles that we drive standpoint, it's a win.
From the standpoint that producing an EV creates a ton of greenhouse gases while continuing to drive your older internal combustion vehicle generates no new production greenhouse gases because it already exists, I can't help but wonder if we come out ahead overall.
That is, would consuming less (including new EV's) be worse than staying with what you've got?
If you're used to seeing small towns and rural areas as sleepy and slower-paced, I may have some bad news for you.
The article below details an interesting demographic shift (with its likely attendant consequences for city services, politics, and etc.).
As remote work becomes more possible and accepted, people are deciding to live where they don't work.
Small towns, often with lower land and housing prices are starting to attract people for this reason. I hear that Fort Morgan, CO is starting to fill in (as are small towns closer in to Denver).
I know too that there are people not too far from me who work remotely and moved out here for lower prices.
And that is part of the issue.
When more people move in there is more demand. More demand means (at least temporarily) higher prices.
More people also mean more strain on government resources. That means higher government "prices" (taxes) to provide services.
Lastly, there is the potential for resentment due to people bringing their values to an area when those values don't match the prevailing ones.**
I think, out of fairness, that people moving into rural areas is not entirely negative. There are benefits.
More people mean economic growth.
More consumers means more money injected into the local economy.
I suppose the good or bad of it comes down to balancing the good and the bad, and (as in the previous post) the pace of the change.
Meantime, I think I have this figured out. If where I live experiences a boom I've got a plan. I've already fixed up my home like I like it. If my area takes off, I'll sit on my house til the prices get nice and high and then move to a rural area with lower prices and friendlier politics.
**I had to chuckle in reading the article below because of what native Montanans are saying about the state being full or "Don't Californicate Montana". Sound familiar? Colorado could likely be a cautionary tale.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pandemic-population-boom-rural-hotspots-100000481.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAItXuK6Fe13hwAjHCk9D-IcJ5Js8xyiMiJLY1cWJ6WVWJ9oHAVReHoF-ezszqIjO0p3Ni7_LEMc33OOq6ql2Wjy2Di0bdmlms982hCUv9ABCudvzFTF5HV01O1SMsEAFe-S4z85vI_ksFDwzDjT7mudEaKO6X7QhIQRPWGFMDuY5&guccounter=2