Time frames the context that affects political views

YEARS AGO, the argument on nuclear weapons went like this: On the right, “We need more or we’ll fall behind the Soviets”; on the left, “But the more nuclear weapons there are, the more likely they’ll be used eventually.”

Then I heard that we needed to drill in the Arctic National Refuge, because we needed to reach energy independence and the other side said that we needed the wild lands, and once destroyed, they couldn’t be brought back.

More recently, in New Mexico, I hear that we must continue drilling for oil and gas because we need the jobs and the energy is our power. Other voices say that we’re poisoning the air and water, depleting a resource and causing irreparable harm to the earth.

Most people seem to see these two points of view as divided (or to) be something other than I do. I see them both as valid arguments, just in different time scales.

The arguments from the right are real and valid arguments. If we stop drilling for oil and gas, we will lose, or at least have to change, jobs. But, from the view of the left, renewable energy will prevent much of the pollution and climate change that’s being caused by drilling.

Now, whichever side you are on, think of this: all the arguments from the right are correct, provided you only look at the next four years, and all the arguments from the left are correct, provided you look only at the long term, five, 10 or a hundred years from now.

It seems to me that the real difference, at least with regards to weapons, energy, jobs and the like, between left and right is just how far away they are looking. The right is nearsighted. The left is farsighted. Both are seeing reality, just from different distances.

I guess the question is, do you want things to be good for the next few years and then go to Hell, or do you want to do uncomfortable, difficult things now for the sake of a much better world in a decade or two?

JERRY STAUFFER Albuquerque