Who’s Afraid of the Green New Deal?

Filed in International, National by on February 26, 2019

Lots of people, it seems, even some of the 81% who tell pollsters they support it. Republicans consider it the spawn of Satan or, worse, Lenin. Democrats fret that it’s so radical it will drive voters into the nurturing arms of President Stable Genius. To which I say, good. Excellent. All this chatter shows the GND already has done its job. It’s put climate change on the agenda.

No matter how you feel about the Green New Deal, overall or in its specifics, you have to admit this is the first time the debate will go past “Is it real?” and into “What are we going to do about it?” If you don’t think that’s a big step, you don’t understand the geologic time scale on which Washington operates, or how the media behemoth picks its stories.

It’s OK that pragmatists, including lots of Democratic leaders, dismiss it as too broad, expensive or unfocused, as Dianne Feinstein famously did last week to a clutch of concerned students. Such confrontations keep the proposal in the news. And every time a wrinkled old pol confronts young people over this on camera, it reinforces the image that aged people with authority are lecturing youngsters who will have to survive the world that results from their so-called pragmatism.

The actual proposal, especially its social components, are indeed radical. (If you aren’t familiar with the plan or how it was developed, you can catch up with this thorough explainer at Vox, which goes into a good bit of detail in a non-polemic way.) That’s a feature, not a bug. As Bill McKibben pointed out in the New Yorker, only a radical plan will do. It was 2001 when scientists said we had 30 years to deal with the problem before things got dire. We’ve now frittered away 18 of them. Every new study seems to point to effects of current CO2 levels progressing faster than expected. One released Monday found we could be 100 years from a tipping point in which higher temperatures and reduced cloud cover would trigger a sudden 15-degree Fahrenheit increase. It’s too late to employ the usual stalling tactics.

Yet, even though now is too late, the American public won’t embrace this right away. That 81% of people who claim to support the Green New Deal obviously haven’t read it yet. They’re supporting it in principle, and they were cued to support it because the questions contained prompts about creating jobs and overcoming income inequality. The proposals poll much worse when the same questions are bracketed by concerns about costs and social upheaval.

You can’t effect change without a committed buy-in from the public. The initial support shows that people want to confront this. As usual, though, they will resist making the changes they know are necessary. All this Democrat Party establishment resistance is a necessary step in establishing that everybody’s eggs will be broken for this omelette, and the sooner the establishment Dems explain this to their corporate donors, the better the chance advanced civilization will survive.

About the Author ()

Who wants to know?

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. xyz says:

    Remember back in the early 70s when we were all told the Earth would be a barren wasteland due to overpopulation within a generation? Seems a little ridiculous now, doesn’t it?

    In a few decades people will look back at this hysteria and it will look just as ridiculous.

    • Alby says:

      The nice thing about such a prediction is that, unless you’re much younger than you seem, you’ll never live to find out.

      I provided links. Feel free to post all the evidence in your corner.

  2. Dave says:

    The GND is planetary and aspirational. No matter how necessary it is, it has yet to be translated down to the individual and as such, candidates cannot run on it.

    Or to put it into simpler terms; it does not equate to a “chicken in every pot.”

    People want to know how the candidate is going to make their lives better. A GND in the future is worth nothing compared to a chicken in the hand.

    • Alby says:

      Granted. But that’s the way legislating is supposed to work: You agree something is a problem and you debate what to do about it. If you don’t get it on the agenda, you don’t even start that first step.

      In more recent times, we have fallen into a pattern of each side, but mostly the GOP, setting not just its goals but its strategies in concrete and then fighting over which version will win, hence our perpetual gridlock, which is exactly what you want if you hate change. Can’t afford that anymore. A draw is a loss.

      Yes, people want to know how a candidate is going to make their lives better. But what’s needed for the crisis is someone who can explain to them that they have to take the medicine, because while they might not care if they die, they don’t get to make that choice for everyone else. And if you’re talking about this on a planetary scale, America is the nihilist who doesn’t care if everyone dies.

  3. RE Vanella says:

    An important message from Nathan J Robinson at Current Affairs:

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/02/ignore-all-arguments-about-what-is-politically-feasible

  4. I Don't Think So says:

    GND is a bad dream espoused by a nit wit and believed in by no one, those who answer the poll likely have never read it and never will.

  5. Alby says:

    Very convincing argument. Thanks.