Bright Ideas, Dim Results: The Failed CFL Mandate and What It Reveals About the Liberal Brain

The liberal mind is a fascinating, and often frustrating, beast.

In 2007, California set its sights on phasing out Edison’s incandescent bulb as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which aimed to reduce energy consumption. At first glance, it seemed like a noble cause—save energy, reduce carbon footprints. But don't ask too many questions—yes, it was dumb.

The state, however, did what it so often does: picked a winner in the marketplace. Instead of letting the market continue its shift toward LED technology, which was emerging as the superior option, California promoted Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs).

This decision was problematic on multiple levels. CFLs contain neon, mercury and pose environmental hazards. They were also unpopular because of their poor light quality, slow warm-up time, and relatively short lifespan. The widespread adoption of LEDs, a more efficient and reliable technology, was delayed because of this government intervention, and the price of LEDs remained artificially high for years.

Chuck DeVore, a former state legislator from Orange County, saw this coming. He predicted that California would soon need to establish recycling programs for CFLs, considering the hazardous materials they contained—a prediction that turned out to be correct. Yet his Democratic colleagues scoffed at him. The CFL saga serves as a classic example of how government interventions in markets can create unintended consequences and, in this case, delay better, more efficient solutions​.

---

As a member of Rational Ground you get access to these tools:

• ChatGPT for Covid! Answer all of your questions

• Exclusive charts and spreadsheets leading upt he election. Stay tuned!

• Interaction with some of the brightest minds of our movement
  

---

But beyond the policy missteps, this episode highlights something deeper—the underlying philosophy driving such liberal decisions. It reveals three pillars that often undergird liberalism:

1. The Tribe Always Comes First: At the heart of liberal ideology is tribal intersubjectivity. Liberalism, as it manifests today, operates under the notion that the tribe—whether that be a cultural, racial, environmental or ideological group—supersedes all. This tribal allegiance often results in policies that prioritize the group over the individual, regardless of broader consequences.

2. The Progressive Man Can Always Be Trusted to Do Good: Liberalism has an implicit trust in the progressive man—a belief that those on the right side of history will inevitably make the correct choices. This faith in human nature is admirable but often naive, leading to policies that assume the best intentions without considering the potential for unintended harm. This trust is a form of narcissism that blinds them to the potential downsides of their actions.

3. Impatience as a Driving Force: Liberalism is characterized by a sense of urgency, an impatience to implement change. This impatience is evident in their approach to policymaking—liberal politicians are deeply intent on getting things done while they’re still in office, often rushing decisions without fully contemplating their long-term impact.

The CFL mandate highlights the pitfalls of these three pillars. The state’s tribal allegiance to environmentalism led it to favor CFLs over LEDs, trusting that the progressive path of energy efficiency was the right one, without considering the environmental hazards of mercury. And in their impatience to phase out incandescents, they overlooked the emerging LED technology that would have been a better solution.

The liberal mind, while driven by noble aspirations, often falls prey to a rigid, almost tribal way of thinking. The constant pursuit of change, while seemingly progressive, is fueled by a deep-seated impatience and anxiety about stagnation. This drive for the new can lead to a dangerous disregard for the complexities of human experience and the lessons of history.

Liberals are quick to dismiss tradition, believing that change is always preferable, even when it leads to unintended consequences. They implicitly trust that progress will always yield positive results, but history shows that this is not always the case.

In my own faith, we recognize that the natural man is an enemy to God and, by extension, to his fellow man. The Constitution and the structures established by the Founding Fathers were designed to keep this illicit desire for power and control at bay. Yet liberals, with their implicit trust in the progressive man, often overlook the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a few.

As the French philosopher Montaigne once said, “Vera difficilis semper eadem esse”—it is a difficult thing to always be the same man.

This is where the conservative mind comes in. Conservatives, with their respect for tradition and appreciation for the nuanced complexities of human interactions, offer a much-needed counterpoint to the liberal tendency toward simplistic solutions and radical change. Conservatives understand that true change must be gradual, that it must be built upon the foundations of the past, and that it must be driven by respect for individual liberty and Constitutional principles.

However, conservatives are not without their own blind spots. They too can fall prey to tribalism and the temptation to dismiss the legitimate concerns of others. But by remaining grounded in tradition and history, conservatives are better equipped to navigate the complexities of governance without falling into the traps of impatience and overreach.

Ultimately, the CFL bulb fiasco is a microcosm of the broader ideological tensions between liberal and conservative thought. It illustrates why, despite good intentions, liberal policies often fail to achieve their desired outcomes—and why conservative principles of gradual change and respect for tradition remain essential in navigating the complexities of modern governance.