If you’ve read, watched, or listened to any news at all this past week you couldn’t escape hearing about the outlines of the “Green New Deal” and the ramifications it will have. Highlighted in various news stories are all the great or terrible things in this plan, depending on your ideological point of view. We’re not going to repeat them all here but thought it worthwhile to comment on a few aspects of this plan.
To briefly set the context, the authors of this proposal state their belief that we are presently in the midst of a crisis with the same level of “emergency” as existed during the great depression and World War II. This present day “emergency” is a combination of the malicious forces of climate change and social oppression/unfairness. The magnitude of this crisis is so enormous, the measures necessary to overcome it must be at least at the same scale as those taken ~80 years ago when we last had an emergency of this enormity. The intended remedies to the problem, which have garnered most of the news coverage, entail a gigantic shift in our lifestyles, comforts, and culture.
Our main reaction is to the core premise itself – namely that we are in the depths of an emergency. In our opinion we are not (not even close). For full disclosure, our climate change position is that we agree the earth’s temperature has risen slightly over the last 150 years, and if it continues, we will have to adapt to whatever ramifications accompany that increase. But we also believe the temperature rise is more likely the result of a natural climatic cycle (as has occurred in our pre-industrial past) than purely a human-caused phenomenon. While there may be some fractional component of the present temperature increase that is due to increased carbon emissions, we don’t believe the removal of that component (even if it were possible) could possibly result in the remedy sought by implementing the drastic measures in the New Green Deal. We’ve written more extensively about this in a previous article – Climate Change.
Politicians supporting this plan all publicly profess absolute confidence in the repetitious narrative that not only is post-industrial human activity the sole cause of earth’s rising average temperature, but that it is within the realm of human ability to reverse that increase. We understand the need for them to publicly project this confidence to their voter base, but strongly suspect they are much less confident about it in private. This is evident in the outlines of the proposal with its inclusion of the seemingly disconnected issues of social injustice, wealth inequality, healthcare, union jobs, etc. all being couched as part of the same current catastrophe with climate change. Despite its name (New Green Deal) the climate change part of this crisis is apparently not compelling enough to stand on its own and needs to be bolstered by other emergencies to justify the radical and costly recommendations.
These other social fairness emergencies are simply a list of all the well-known progressive ideological goals of the past. They are no greater of a crisis now than they were purported to be 20, 30, or 50 years ago. This is not to say they are all invalid, only that their associated “urgency” hasn’t changed from what it has always been. We think there is an attempt to create a symbiotic relationship here in that these social fairness initiatives need the money capable of being generated by the climate change industry, and the climate change industry needs the compassionate human connection so easily generated by the social oppression and unfairness narratives. Clever, but embarrassingly transparent.
A side show of sorts to all this is a lesson in real-time on how the spotlight can become wholly owned by a lowly freshman member of Congress who combines charisma, fearlessness, and superb timing. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly manages to outflank her “superiors” in Congress and elsewhere in attracting headlines and attention. It is plainly obvious she has gotten under the skin of the Speaker of the House, creating a comical dynamic to watch.
Our final thought is to consider all of the machinations surrounding this “New Green Deal” as entertainment. It is amusing to think about what life would be like should all the proposed recommendations in the plan be carried out. Paula and I have found our own conversations on this topic to be just as entertaining as when we wrote about the real-life ramifications of California seceding from the US and becoming its own country (Calexit). It’s a fun time to follow politics.
2 Responses
I agree that it’s an unobtainable plan (for now) and I feel sad for those that give any credence to the rationale of the plan or the plan itself. The proponents are inherently lazy and parrot unresearched ideas to other uninformed citizens.
The majority of funding for government and private programs that assist those in need, comes from the hard working, risk taking, top percentages of our population. The less motivated percentage of the population expect the capitalist Democratic leaders to provide for them. Yes, capitalists, as they amass fortunes while serving in Congress by legally stealing their inventory (cash), from others and sell it to the uninformed for votes. The goal of their business plan is to maintain and grow their client base by making those clients dependent, as drug dealers do. Their clever marketing plan promises utopian ideals (e.g. Green New Deal), to create an image of benevolence – but it’s just a facade for their racket. And like any good business plan, you need training for sales. Our elementary, secondary and higher education system is where their plan is far superior to conservatives and there are no cycles that can reverse this liberal madrasa environment. The vast majority of teachers and professors are intelligent wall flowers, afraid to explore the capitalist, less secure world (Democratic Leadership capitalists excluded). Sure, there are a few conservatives, but a tiny percentage – conservatives are not just losing in sales, but already lost. The liberal sales pipeline is full.
Elizabeth Warren had some spunk and rose up the ladder from a liberal professor to a Democratic Leadership Capitalist. She received a professorship in Texas after lying about her Indian heritage. Not to be out done, Harvard awarded her a $350K salary for her new found heritage to teach a single class and then gave her a ‘zero percent home loan’ to buy a home in Cambridge currently valued over $2M. Her net worth is now estimated over $10M.
I guess a capitalist is a capitalist!
You are so right about our dismal education system. There is real irony here with one of the supposed “benefits” of a socialist society. In a true socialist society, any individual is presumably able to pursue their creative and artistic talents (to benefit the society) without having to worry about struggling for food, housing, or healthcare. This is the socialist’s justification for people who are “not willing to work”, because their time spent not working is still benefiting the community as a whole – possibly even more so than if they did work. It’s a reasonable futuristic goal, but one that has a gigantic glaring problem at present – our education system is not preparing or motivating a large percentage of it’s students with any kind of creative or artistic skills to pursue! It’s like going into the huddle of a football game with no one able to call a play.
Don’t get me started on Elizabeth Warren. THe one positive thing to say is that her continued presence in the 2020 campaign will likely only serve to have all those things you mention be continually repeated by Trump and others exposing her hypocrisy. The longer she stays in, the more her own hypocrisy will bleed over to the whole party.