Election 2020: the big deal about the Green New Deal
A flashpoint issue of the 2020 Presidential Election is the Green New Deal, a fascinating story about a proposal framed innocuously as “the start of a discussion about climate change and what we as a nation can do about it.”
Senator Ed Markey, a co-sponsor and co-author of the Green New Deal (GND), was re-elected over a Kennedy in the. Massachusetts Democratic Primary on Thursday, Sept. 3. That says something about an incumbent (since 2013) beating a dynasty (since 1954) on the one hand, and on the other hand, a 74 year old Democrat supported by 20 and 30 year-olds organized, energized and collectivized thanks to social media. (1)
Blame Markey’s re-election win on the Green New Deal.
The Trump Party/RNC has smeared GND as a radical socialist takeover foisted on unwitting citizens.
“Unwitting” but not unwilling. Poll younger voters to measure interest in environmental policy and tackling climate change, we find general support of the GND. Poll younger voters to measure interest in meaningful new job formation, we find support of the GND. Poll younger voters on the direction of government — what they WANT from their government — we find support of the GND. In short what seminal proposition will bring the youth out to vote in 2020? The Green New Deal.
So what are the policy initiatives of GND? And what implications does this new “socialist” passion bring to the 2020 election?
Hold on: GND is NOT socialism. GND is “the alternative” to socialism and here’s the point: the more we lefties tout the GND as progressivism, we are playing into Trump’s smear and generational politics.
The GND is good governance — NOT socialism, NOT capitalism. Thank you Bernie Sanders. (2)
Consider this for a moment: the GND proposes a redistribution of assets which are currently being sold off, being liquidated to sustain income inequality.
In other words the GND proposes that America take back what it already has. Sounds more like “conservatism” to me.
How can this be?
First off, the GND is a formula and an assessment strategy for mitigating climate change by bringing carbon emissions in line with economic expansion. Secondly, it is non-binding, “so even if Congress approves it, nothing in the proposal would become law.” (3) Third, the GND addresses the social and economic cost to communities adversely affected by reducing fossil fuel dependence — communities disproportionately poor, struggling to survive a declining conventional “dirty” energy market.
No wonder when asked about the cost in dollars of implementing the GND, Rep. Alexandra Octavio-Cortez confirmed “ no one knows.” A straight card player, “AOC” refused to speculate on the federal budget impact of implementing GND.
No argument here: it’s our money.
And spending our money wisely has historically speaking been a core value of “conservatism”: don’t spend taxpayer dollars until you figure out whom (and when) and how the expenditure will benefit.
Unlike the current reckless economic policy of resolving debt by printing more money, the GND seeks a path to environmental “balance” through federal government initiative.
I repeat, sounds like conservatism to me.
September 6–8, 2020
1- Michelle Goldberg, “How the Green New Deal Saved a Senator’s Career,” New York Times, Sept. 4, 2020
2- Sen. Bernie Sanders, “We have ‘socialism’ in this country. We have ‘socialism’ for the rich.”
3- Lisa Friedman, “What is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal Explained,” New York Times, Feb. 21, 2019