Why is it that some people defend keeping "a way of life" in place even when it has outlived its usefulness and might even be bad for everyone else?. Why is it that one "way of life" is worth saving and another is not?
Even in the middle of a planetary disaster like the Gulf oil spill we have people insisting that the jobs provided by deep water drilling must not disappear because a way of life in Gulf Coastal states would be destroyed. I am sorry, but that way of life is killing us all and it is time to move on. Why was it okay to destroy a way of life in the states that manufacture auto parts by shipping jobs overseas but not okay to destroy jobs in the military/industrial complex? I think a lot of it has to do with profit, industry political donations, and voting blocs.
In my political career I always managed to come up against someone's way of life. First it was the liquor industry in New Mexico. They had no real supervision back in the 70's and early 80's. Then it was the livestock industry as State Land Commissioner who felt they should be subsidized to overgraze. And the oil industry who didn't want to pay fair royalties. And then as Mayor the real estate developers who wanted no planned growth and water management.
So, this is nothing new. Although I will say that of all the folks I came up against the oil guys are the most insidious and focused group at keeping the status quo. (even the cowboys can be collaborative now and then) Very little has changed in their philosophy in my view. More profit, no matter what the cost to the rest of us, is still their number one goal. And they may soon be running state government through republican Susana Martinez and GOP party secretary Yates of Yates Petroleum.