Now sleep in the bed you've made
February 14, 2020 4:00 AM   Subscribe

Right-Wing Backlash Greets Modest GOP Foray Into Climate Change House Republicans offered a modest proposal to slow climate change. It was not well-received.
The free market-group American Energy Alliance dismissed it as a “Republican-led Green New Deal lite” that amounted to a “climate messaging exercise.” The libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute called it “bad policy that will not bring any political relief.” And the Club for Growth vowed to not endorse any candidate who backs what it called the “liberal” Republican climate plan.

“House Republicans stand united against carbon taxes and burdensome regulations,” said Graves, top Republican on a special select committee charged with coming up with solutions to climate change. “America leads the world because of free-market principles, innovation, and our abundant energy resources. We should double down on an America First strategy that enhances our global power and influence.”
posted by Kirth Gerson (73 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
Obligatory.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:22 AM on February 14 [23 favorites]


they're going to kill us all
posted by kokaku at 4:32 AM on February 14 [36 favorites]


Yes, it's a cult. One has to adhere to the rules of the cult, lest they be cast out.
posted by ivanthenotsoterrible at 4:32 AM on February 14 [18 favorites]


INEOKIYAR
posted by rikschell at 4:32 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]


America leads the world because of free-market principles, innovation, and our abundant energy resources. We should double down on an America First strategy that enhances our global power and influence.

Aah, flash fiction
posted by Merus at 4:40 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]


INEOKIYAR

That's:
It's Not Even OK If You're A Republican

It becomes more clear by the day just what it is that these "conservatives" are trying to conserve.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:42 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]


Yes, it's a cult.

death cult
posted by thelonius at 4:44 AM on February 14 [26 favorites]


It's this stuff that makes me despair of any chance to fix climate change. As long as there's any chance for moneyed reactionaries to halt or repeal climate change initiatives, they're going to get halted and repealed. Money speaks louder than the death rattle of the planet and that does not bode well for humanity.
posted by Philipschall at 4:56 AM on February 14 [23 favorites]


You know... it’s hard to have a political party when everyone is dead.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:11 AM on February 14 [11 favorites]


Yes, it's a cult.

death cult


Probably pretty accurate in a few decades when florida and similar levels are largely under water and the tip of the power structure realizes there are just too many people. Realize they need an inverse decimation solution.
posted by sammyo at 5:16 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]


America leads the world because of free-market principles, innovation, and our abundant energy resources. We should double down on an America First strategy that enhances our global power and influence.

And when China and Europe lead the market with innovation in sustainable technology and products, the heartlands will again fall behind in earnings and quality of life, while the coasts will be buying international products with all the money they earn from trade, produce and services.
posted by mumimor at 5:16 AM on February 14 [15 favorites]


Realize they need an inverse decimation solution
So . . . Beat them to the punch?
posted by aspersioncast at 5:35 AM on February 14


Meanwhile in England the fucking Tories have long-standing plans to eliminate the internal combustion engine and roll out green infrastructure . There really is no comparison between the level of political corruption in this country and the level of political corruption in other economically advanced countries.

Mike fucking Bloomberg is basically buying the Democratic Party, and he funded many these maniacs in 2016. And two of the other Democratic front runners are trying to sell the idea that they can “compromise” with these people.
posted by eagles123 at 5:39 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]


GOP Edges Gingerly Toward Climate Plan After Sowing Doubts - "The move comes as the GOP stance on the issue shifts from sowing doubt about climate change -- or ignoring it all together -- to grappling with how to best address it in the face of pressure from young voters and public alarm over deadly storms and wildfires linked to global warming."
“I think it’s a lot like health care was for the Republican party,” said Kiera O’Brien, president of Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends. “Climate is really a risk issue for us. We see the writing on the wall.”
Republican Lawmakers Introduce Trillion Trees Act To Combat Climate Change - "The American Energy Alliance, a pro-market energy advocacy group, has dismissed Westerman's proposal as a Republican 'climate messaging exercise.' That sounds about right."
posted by kliuless at 6:18 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]


Probably pretty accurate in a few decades when florida and similar levels are largely under water and the tip of the power structure realizes there are just too many people. Realize they need an inverse decimation solution.

Republicans will blame it on immigrants weighing the state down.
posted by Gelatin at 6:26 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]


Here’s the thing: They’re winning. That’s not a cynical statement. That’s not a defeatist statement. It’s just fact.

They are winning. At least in terms of actual power. Liberal ideology wins over about 60% of cultural forces. At least “virtually.”

But by now we should know the only thing that really matters is power. Yet we don’t.

And they have it, are not afraid of using it, and stay unified under that single purpose.

Liberals, and, hahaha... forget about the left, simply cannot unify or solidify into a serious movement anymore, at least anywhere but in tweets. And even those are easily weaponized against our own.

The Right figured out how to wage asymmetrical war for power. And the left still thinks arguing in the internet matters.

I have no idea how to alter that dynamic. But until we do... welcome to the future of permanent political minority.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 6:29 AM on February 14 [39 favorites]


Looks like the GOP is using the same playbook for climate change action that they did for gay marriage: oppose it, even use it as a wedge issue, then when it seems inevitable, try to co-opt it (and probably end up saying that they were better than the Democrats on the issue).
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:30 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]


“ Looks like the GOP is using the same playbook for climate change action that they did for gay marriage“

I don’t think they’ll ever adopt climate policies. Because that will take money. It will cost. It will impact short term profits. They will always get industry on their side by opposing meaningful regulations.

Allowing gay people to get married didn’t cost anything. No corporation cared about gay people getting married. Opposition to it was simply to appeal to Christians. And now after Trump they know those people don’t really have any principles at all. So tepid support of marriage equality costs nothing.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 6:47 AM on February 14 [16 favorites]


“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” -- Eisenhower in a private letter to his brother.

What was negligible in the 50s is calling the tune now. There's a ton of fossil fuel money funding the right wing power structure, always has been.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:48 AM on February 14 [19 favorites]


Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza: Here’s the thing: They’re winning. That’s not a cynical statement. That’s not a defeatist statement. It’s just fact.

Counterpoint: 2018's Blue Wave, and Dr. Rachel Bitecofer's forecast for the 2020 U.S. Election (previously). "The complacent electorate of 2016, who were convinced Trump would never be president, has been replaced with the terrified electorate of 2020, who are convinced he’s the Terminator and can’t be stopped. Under my model, that distinction is not only important, it is everything."

Republicans will continue to stoke fears of immigration, and socialism, making up bogeymen to motivate their base. Democrats have something stronger to fight for: reclaiming democracy, and positive action to avert further climate catastrophe.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:01 AM on February 14 [22 favorites]


Liberals, and, hahaha... forget about the left
I have no idea how to alter that dynamic.

Maybe start by not appearing to ridicule the only people willing to actually do something about the problem?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:01 AM on February 14 [25 favorites]



Never forget that President NIXON created the EPA because he thought it was a bipartisan, sensible idea to protect the environment.

The book Dying of Whiteness shows over and over again that some people are ready to die to uphold their deadly conservative ideals. I'm sad it has taken me so long to realize this, especially when it comes to the environment.
posted by Freecola at 7:07 AM on February 14 [11 favorites]


Q: what do climate-denying death cult Republicans and invasive jumping worms have in common?
posted by eviemath at 7:07 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]


Cleek's law, now almost ten years old:

today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily.

Liberals/leftists can't bring conservatives around with reasoned argument or with a win/win compromise because conservatives just want liberals and leftists to lose. One would think Republican leaders would understand this about their own base by now.
posted by burden at 7:11 AM on February 14 [18 favorites]


Wait, no, I started the joke wrong. What's the difference between a climate change-denying death cult Republicans and an invasive jumping worm?
posted by eviemath at 7:13 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]


Maybe start by not appearing to ridicule the only people willing to actually do something about the problem?

The ONLY people? You maybe wanna analyze that bit of arrogance.

“The only people.” See. You honestly think you’re the “only people” that matter. That’s the problem right there.

Do you know how many leftists I personally know who didn’t vote in 2016 because their messiah didn’t get the nomination? 80 million people didn’t vote in 2016.

Most of those “only people“ have not altered their opinion one bit if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination this time. And if ridicule effects how they vote they got bigger problems.

God. Talk about proving my point. I’m out.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 7:13 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]


they're going to kill us all
I've been saying for a while now that the Great Filter is this: Any species that could possibly become "intelligent" in a way that would let them be detectable over interstellar distances would have to be much like us in a lot of ways, including our social pathologies (argument omitted). And for such a species, the interval between the invention of steam power and the day the greedheads can cause planetary catastrophe with their shortsightedness is shorter than the time needed to escape their doomed home.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:14 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]


The ONLY people? You maybe wanna analyze that bit of arrogance.

So name the other people willing to do something.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:35 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]


Liberals/leftists can't bring conservatives around with reasoned argument or with a win/win compromise because conservatives just want liberals and leftists to lose. One would think Republican leaders would understand this about their own base by now.

I think it was Virginia where a Republican lawmaker introduced a bill to take down a statue of a slaveholder because he happened to be a Democrat and this lawmaker wanted to own the libs and show them what it was like. The Democrats were like "Great!" and piled on to support it because taking down statues of slaveholders is good, so the Republican had to run around and find someone to oppose the bill because he didn't suspect the Democrats were sincere.

(I know the Democrats can be just as cynical but the point remains).
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:38 AM on February 14 [13 favorites]


Oh, plenty of other people willing to do something. More and more people just want to "burn it all down". Plenty of others.
posted by aleph at 7:39 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]


I wonder if this is a case of the plutocrats losing control of the machine they've built. It does seem like the .01% are kind of coming around on climate change and inequality to save their own asses. I think that's why things like UBI have bubbled up into the public consciousness in the last few years. But they've spent so long and so much effort constructing this giant machine of media entities, think thanks, religious organizations, and an indoctrinated voter base that exists solely to oppose those things that maybe they're finding they can't steer the country quite as they'd like anymore. I think the Tea Party was the first inkling of this. Trump is one result: while he's certainly helpful to the rich, businesses also hate unpredictability above all else, and probably aren't thrilled that the guy in charge might randomly start an actual war one morning with an offhand Tweet. But there's not much they can do about it, since the machine has made Trump into its God.
posted by the legendary esquilax at 8:00 AM on February 14 [15 favorites]


Do you know how many leftists I personally know who didn’t vote in 2016 because their messiah didn’t get the nomination? 80 million people didn’t vote in 2016.

Are you conflating Bernie supporters (or Stein supporters) who didn't vote with the total number of registered voters who didn't vote?
posted by atoxyl at 8:22 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]


Someone told me my approach of "The Democrat, 2020" has to wait for after the primary.

No. It doesn't.

It starts now. I don't give a shit who wins the democratic primary. I'm voting for them. We elect a Democrat. Then, if necessary, we elect a *better* Democrat.
posted by aleph at 8:47 AM on February 14 [16 favorites]


if bloomberg gets the nom im voting for trump because i'd rather have an incompetent racist, misogynist billionaire fascist than a competent one
posted by entropicamericana at 9:04 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]


Nope. That's how we got here. (among other reasons)
posted by aleph at 9:07 AM on February 14 [12 favorites]


Most of those “only people“ have not altered their opinion one bit if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination this time

I know you ragequit, but I’d love some clarification here....the tenses don’t make sense....you mean they should alter their opinion (how?) if Sanders does not get the nomination, but you predict that they will not?
posted by thelonius at 9:14 AM on February 14


The people who stayed home because Sanders did not emerge with the nomination pale beside the people who stayed home - or voted the other way - because of who did. Or whose opinions were biased by decades of right-wing media bombardment or Comey's 11th-hour broadside. Or whom were lulled into complacency by forecasts of Hillary's victory being 90-99% likely.

But if your candidate of choice endorses radical policy shifts and your 2020 candidate ends up being (let us say) a racist billionaire versus a racist pseudo-millionaire puppet, I can't blame you one bit if there ends up being a realer enthusiasm gap.
posted by delfin at 9:30 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]


As for right-wing tepid climate advocacy, the test for modern Republicans is not obedience to policy or to principles but complete obedience to a rigid ideology and to the authoritarians it identifies as leadership. To differ is to be hammered down, then to be primaried if it continues. The definition of RINO widens every week.

This will not change unless Republicans decide that they will lose more money and power via going with the downward-spiral flow than by sticking with it to the end. And the people who have grown rich and powerful under the current engine of destruction have zero interest in letting others play.
posted by delfin at 9:38 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]


AFAIK, all of the rich industrialists went with Hitler all of the way to the end. And were saved by the "let's look ahead" approach, which again led to the Rote Arme Fraction.
posted by mumimor at 9:44 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]


A (very slightly) positive climate news item: "global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stopped growing in 2019"
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:23 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]


Looks like the GOP is using the same playbook for climate change action that they did for gay marriage: oppose it, even use it as a wedge issue, then when it seems inevitable, try to co-opt it (and probably end up saying that they were better than the Democrats on the issue).

The Republicans know when they've lost a messaging war. Out on the campaign trail, they don't go around declaring their intent to cut Social Security -- which, by the way, is self-funded and doesn't contribute to the deficit at all. They know that if they made that promise, they'd lose. They mutter darkly about "entitlement spending," because their focus groups tell them people think that means money other people get, that they don't deserve, but they don't dare openly advocate repealing Social Security or Medicare.

Eisenhower was dead on about farm subsidies; the Republicans just admitted they were here to stay and so changed them to a transfer of taxpayer dollars to large agribusiness corporations.

The recent Republican line has been to promise to replace the ACA with something better -- which they never have proposed -- and angrily deny that they want to restore the status quo in which people with pre-existing conditions will lose their health care -- although their plans inevitably lead to that.

They have to sell their tax cuts with phony promises that tax cuts for the rich will supercharge the economy and lead to prosperity.

The Republican platform of "transfer the other 47% of the nation's wealth to the top 1%" is not popular. So they train their voters to reflexively vote against "liberals" or "socialists" -- which words have no meaning except "the enemy"; see cleek's law, cited above.

But a lot of the Democratic platform is actually popular, when presented to the voters honestly, as the Republicans' is unpopular. Thye have disproportionate power based on their control of a propaganda network, but their recent embrace of fascism, authoritarianism, and voter suppression isn't a sign of strength; it's an admission of weakness. They know that there are more voters who oppose their policies than support them, even if the ultra-rich want things another way.

There are more of us than there are of them, and anyone to the left of Mitt Romney needs to recognize the risks of Republican rule, vote, and take power away from them.
posted by Gelatin at 10:40 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]


Ah nice, the topic is Republican climate denialism, naturally inspiring the question of whether the left is to blame.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:44 AM on February 14 [18 favorites]


Job #1 is to break the Republican President/Senate lock. After that I'll entertain alternatives.
posted by aleph at 10:45 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]


Job #1 is to break the Republican President/Senate lock. After that I'll entertain alternatives.

It doesn't do anything about the Senate -- and the Democrats would need to eliminate the filibuster for it to happen -- but one way to re-balance power away from Republicans and in favor of loyal Americans is to revisit the century-old Apportionment Act of 1911. That law caps the number of Representatives at 435.

Double it.

With more representatives, higher population states -- which tend to be Democratic -- would receive more representation in the House. And Democrats would enjoy a proportional and crucial benefit in the Electoral College, as high-population states would also gain more electoral votes. That change alone could keep the House and the Presidency in Democratic hands for the majority of the time.

After that, Senate Republicans could use their power to block everything the Democrats try to do, but one suspects that, Fox news or no Fox news, it'd be more obvious, enough so that it'd be much harder for the so-called "liberal media" to blame inaction on policies Americans favor on neutral-sounding weasel words like "partisan gridlock" and more on "it's the Republicans." Which may cost a Republican senator or two an election, which in turn would get the attention of the rest.
posted by Gelatin at 10:55 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]


What you say is true *but* it breaks (winning the Pres and not Senate) the Republican *cooperation* between the Senate (Moscow Mitch and crew) and the President. In a lot of ways. That's worth a lot.
posted by aleph at 11:00 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]


Hey guys I know I'm very old, but Obama entered office with majorities in both houses. Republicans are crooked and they use all the tricks in all the books, but it's not like they can't be removed ever.
posted by mumimor at 11:10 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]


they're going to kill us all

yeah bc everyone's too cowardly to eat them like i keep saying
posted by poffin boffin at 12:13 PM on February 14 [8 favorites]


Maybe we're just not that hungry. I had a big breakfast!
posted by rocketman at 12:23 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]


if bloomberg gets the nom im voting for trump

𝗣𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗢 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦
posted by JHarris at 12:50 PM on February 14 [15 favorites]


Gelatin: Thye have disproportionate power based on their control of a propaganda network, but their recent embrace of fascism, authoritarianism, and voter suppression isn't a sign of strength; it's an admission of weakness.

There's a fantastic book relevant to this thesis called The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton, who was by any reasonable standard an academic expert on the growth of fascism in the first half of the 20th century. In it the author argues that, while fascism started as a movement among the middle and lower classes as a reaction against the left, it came to power when the traditionally rich and conservative powers-that-were formed an alliance with them. The old guard needed to do that because universal democracy had recently spread and it turned out that the policies that benefited the rich were generally unpopular with the people, and the fascists offered enthusiastic voters who were, after some internal purging, willing to support the policies of the rich as long as they could pursue their own nationalist, racist and other terrible goals. The parallels to today are obvious.

So, my point is that while I definitely agree that the rich old guard embracing fascism is a sign of weakness on their part, it does not in any way mean that they are inevitably on their way out. On the contrary, in fact. Paxton does offer some hope by saying that the rise of the fascist-conservative elite alliance in the 1920s and '30s was not inevitable, just a possibility that unhappily came about. He suggests for example that greater unity between the various left and moderate groups would have really helped push the fascists/conservatives back.
posted by bright flowers at 1:40 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]


"...it does not in any way mean that they are inevitably on their way out."

This.

I could not *believe* all of the gloating about the "inevitable demographics" when Obama came in with the majorities he did. What did they *think* would be the reactions? => People didn't care, it was "inevitable".

It could/can go many ways. "Inevitable" ain't in the cards. (Though the odds are good)
posted by aleph at 2:17 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]


Jeesh gang, with respect to climate change Bloomberg believes strongly that it is a dire threat and our country needs to do something about it. (He also supports gun control legislation, got laws passed banning smoking in bars and restaurants in NYC, and he has given tons of money to support education at Johns Hopkins, for example.)

Bloomberg has some big flaws, and he is not my preferred candidate at all, but he is absolutely in the right side of climate change (and many other issues). To entertain voting for Trump or staying home on Election Day because you dislike Bloomberg is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:34 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]


Bloomberg is worse than every other Democratic candidate, but he's still better than Trump. People forgetting Trump's basic unsuitability for every human office is how we got him as president in the first place.
posted by JHarris at 8:39 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I'd vote for him, if he was the nom, but boy would I be pissed. The DNC still sends me fundraising crap, since I gave to Obama's first campaign, but I am so very tired of the Party tilting the field toward Centrists, and I will never give them another penny until they stop that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:56 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]


Greenwashing. If you fund Republicans that block measures to combat climate change, what's the point? Bloomy spoke at the Republican convention in 2004, funds Republicans now, helped Republicans keep the Senate in 2016..... Give me a break.
posted by eagles123 at 8:20 AM on February 15


With respect to tilting the field towards “centrists” (which somehow has become a pejorative word), the reason is that most Democrats and indeed most Americans are centrists. It’s the preference of the public, as much as many people participating in this forum would hope otherwise.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:44 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]


Disagree. Most people describe themselves as centrists, but if you go issue by issue they hold a collection of extreme and often contradictory views. To the extent "centrism" has a coherent definition in American politics, it refers to positions like comprises to pair entitlement cuts with modest tax increases or "social liberal fiscal conservatives" who want to balance the budget and enact gun control. People might say they support such things in the abstract, but they never vote as if they do.
posted by eagles123 at 9:01 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]


I agree most people will give incoherent views on politics if you ask them about each topic one by one, or even about the same topic in different ways, but I think most people have an overall preference that they don't want the status quo to change too much, for better or worse. That's centrism.
posted by bright flowers at 9:17 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]


That would be conservatism with a small "c".
posted by eagles123 at 9:22 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]


Whatever you call it, that's what most people are, most of the time.
posted by bright flowers at 9:26 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]


In 2016 people voted for the reactionary. In 2008 people voted for the guy promising change. Britain just voted to change their relationship to the rest of the world in fundamental ways. So, I have to say I'm not seeing much evidence of that at present.

Further, people might prefer no change in their lives if they are generally happy, but forces such as economic changes or demographic changes might disrupt that status quo, causing people to turn to the political system for changes in policy that would restore the status quo. Such changes could be characterized as reactionary or progressive, depending on the solutions people seek.
posted by eagles123 at 9:49 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]


if bloomberg gets the nom im voting for trump

Ah. Yes. Case and point. Spite voting always helps. Revanchism. Super helpful. Anybody that votes for Trump because they couldn’t have Sanders never understood Sanders in the first place. They were never the backbone of anything real or lasting. They were never going to solve the climate crisis.

It didn’t take long for every point I made to be so deliciously illustrated by exactly the people I was talking about.

I can't blame you one bit if there ends up being a realer enthusiasm gap.


I can’t blame the lack of enthusiasm. But it doesn’t take enthusiasm to vote for the best option out of worst options. It takes maturity.

I’m going to vote for any pile of dog shit with a “D” stamped on it. And anyone that doesn’t isn’t worth my time.

Revanchist bullshit is what spoiled children do when they don’t get the toy they want so they smash everyone’s toys.

It’s always easier to smash than build. That’s why revolutions sound so appealing. Tearing down systems is easy to do and understand.

Building things to last is hard. It takes lots of patience. It’s often no fun at all.

Adults know political life is a war of inches... of conflict and compromise. That’s all it is most the time. Solutions to big problems very rarely happen in revolutions. In fact revolutions rarely work. Just ask the Arab Spring how that shit is going. Revolutions just as often make things worse. The French Revolution lead to Napoleon and the violent death of millions. And two more monarchies. The real change happened a little at a time.

So. Yeah. I’m not moved by revolutions. I’m moved by people that want to the work. And you need POWER to do that.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 10:02 AM on February 15 [9 favorites]


2016's winner turned out to be a reactionary, which was predictable to anyone who had a clear understanding of who the guy is, but most of the people voting for him thought they were voting for disruption. They disliked the status quo, and still do, so they voted against the status quo candidate, and they'll do it again. Another Centrist will have the same success as the last one.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:14 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]


Most people in the U.S. either vote for the same party each time, specifically voting for their incumbent Congresspeople, or don't vote at all. That's not a sign of a population that wants to see big changes on their actual doorstep. How big is too big, I don't know.
posted by bright flowers at 10:46 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]


Any chance we can freeze these assholes when they die so we can resurrect them in 100 years to live in the flooded Mad Max hellscape that they created?
posted by ensign_ricky at 2:16 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]


So. Yeah. I’m not moved by revolutions. I’m moved by people that want to the work. And you need POWER to do that.

Gosh I just cant get enough of people sneering at radicals as if all the good stuff we enjoy today just magically appeared or was gifted to us by the "powerful" out of the goodness of their hearts and voting initiatives.

It takes a certain kind of historical blindness to be this condescending. And direct action may be the only thing that saves us now. There are Indigenous people literally blockading trains across Canada to protect their land. There are environmental activists in the global south facing kidnapping and murder in order to help save the planet. Fucking spare me this arrogant centrism; the planet is on fire and if all you have to offer are platitudes, gtfo the way of the people doing the work of trying to save this rock.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:55 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]


Spare me. The presidential election has nothing to do with radical activists in Canada. Okay. Nothing. Or anywhere else. I’m talking about this election. And the power winning it brings. And the petulant revanchist horseshit demonstrated in this thread if one unicorn candidate doesn’t win.

Getting the power to make changes so nobody has to block trains.

Are the people blocking trains in Canada going to vote for the equivalent of Trump if blocking the trains doesn’t work? No. They are not. They aren’t going full revanchist if they don’t get what they want. You’re not them. You’re not risking anything.

If you’re arguing that if you can’t have your revolution you’ll burn it all down, then your the one happy condemning the very marginalized people you claim you care. So about spare me your tough talk. If not, then this isn’t about you.

THAT’S privilege. Blind privilege. It’s easy to stump for a white person revolution when if it fails not much happens to you. But we’re seeing real people’s rights eroded every day. Because they don’t have power.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 6:31 PM on February 15 [8 favorites]


Btw. It was a cute trick to falsely conflate my comments with some condemnation of radical protest.

Condescend indeed.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 6:35 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]


And the petulant revanchist horseshit demonstrated in this thread if one unicorn candidate doesn’t win.
I'm not sure how if bloomberg gets the nom im voting for trump got spun out to "Bernie or bust" here.

Like, I've been on record not being a huge fan of "Withholding my vote means you should treat this as serious and vote for my candidate in the name of unity", but that's pretty disingenuous (and leaves out every other candidate).

And let's see the other half of that prompt:
because i'd rather have an incompetent racist, misogynist billionaire fascist than a competent one

A. There's a whole lot of room between "not Bernie" and "not an incompetent racist, misogynist billionaire fascist".
B. It seems like the more direct counter here would be either "Hey, Bloomberg doesn't have a track record of any of that" or "Despite the harm that Bloomberg would likely cause, it's still a worthwhile difference from Trump, and there's a long way before Bloomberg gets the nod and we can be enthusiastic about anybody-but-billionaires"

Those aren't exhaustive, but I feel this at least gets the basics across.
posted by CrystalDave at 9:23 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]


The idiom is "case in point", btw.
posted by eviemath at 6:08 AM on February 16


My gut tells me that if the general election turns out to be between Bloomberg and Trump, the vast majority of climate activists and organizations are going to endorse Bloomberg to win, even and maybe especially the ones who are literally putting their bodies and livelihoods on the line. If you're in physical harm's way then I guess you'll take the practical short-term option even if it's not ideal. I could be wrong though, but it's something to watch for if it comes to that.
posted by bright flowers at 6:53 AM on February 16 [2 favorites]


Going off-topic in a slightly different direction, a platoon of Republicans and centrist Democrats is taking aim at Squad member AOC.
Ocasio-Cortez’s most coherent Democratic challenger to date is former longtime CNBC correspondent and anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. Caruso-Cabrera, who published a book in 2011 called You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government, is a skeptic of big government and a proponent of free markets.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:15 AM on February 17 [3 favorites]


The saddest sentence you will read today, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell on why the Republican-sponsored Trillion Trees Act won't work: "The fact is that we have far too many trees in our national forests."
posted by peeedro at 11:21 AM on February 17


« Older “There have got to be, like, millions"   |   Living as a whole person instead of an idea of a... Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.