« The Weeds

Green New Weeds


David Roberts joins Ezra and Jane to explain the policy and politics of the Green New Deal. Plus: Which candidate has the better climate plan, Beto O’Rourke or Jay Inslee?

Related reading:

The Green New Deal, explained

David Roberts on what’s in the Green New Deal

The Green New Deal critics

The case against incremental climate policy

Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate policy

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Support for this episode country Clicker lose an average of three hours every day, switching between all our work apps, but you can get them back with click on a flexible platform that brings all your central tools in one place: legal prioritize tasks, collaborate on dogs, chat with your team and track coms; It's why companies like Hoover and website use click up is that Mission Control Centre, placing every other aptly we're using before up even guarantees to help you save one day a week and get more done, it's completely customizable and it's free forever to dry click up. Today, click up without com, slash weeds, this episode is brought. You buy Shell college. Football is best enjoyed at home. The home that has no rooms, because it's a stadium of seventy thousand screaming fans,
Were you? Are he s began and shall can take your venom further savings up to fifteen cents per gallon for fuel rewards members? It shall welcome home football fans terms and conditions apply, seek your rewards outcomes, less fuel, your phantom for details. Shell is an official sponsor of European College. Football is beyond the Eu S beyond Logo and yes, the college football are registered, trademarks of GNP and incorporated, but usually doses. Got it right as it you. You got a wave your hands in the air and say welcome to another episode of the weeds, eyelids recline. I think we should have used that low. One another episode of the weeds of blocks, media pike, gas network, I abbess recline, here Jane Coastline and Special guess star for an episode and been waiting to do a long long time, David Thou Roberts elder they their hello. So we ve been trying to get this
new deal? Episode done for awhile, we kept getting hit by the truck of the news, we were going to do it on the day the Mulder report came out, extensive, headed and that didn't go but we're way overdue on this and Davy excited heavy here to talk about it. So let s start. But what is the green new deal? Let before we begin with what is in it? What is it? What is that document to be as a policy. Is it an ideology? Is it what like? What? What is the green new deal? a really good question, and I cannot, unfortunately, I cannot. Kneel down its ontological status for you somewhat indeterminate Particler wave is what I wanted in the broadest in the broadest terms. I would say it's an aspiration: it's an aspiration for the: U S: to respond to climate change on the scale that is necessary,
with a government led investment led mobilization yeah, I would say that's about that's about it as general, as you could put it, and that's about the one thing you could say: that's going to cover all the all the species genus and species of the green new deal beyond that you get into specifics. Indifferent people see it in different ways and are using it in different ways, but but in the broadest terms, is just more. lies the government in the end, the american people, to respond to climate change with with a series of investments create a lot of jobs and an end bring everyone on board and involve everyone, but, but so if I had that aspiration the before the green new deal was released and have it that, after than what is the green new deal right like? What is it
say the changed the radiator or somehow gives people pot from on which to work that they didn't have before it's gotta, be more than an aspiration. People had this aspiration before. I think the best way to understand it is the sort of is to serve work backwards. So you know these activists, mostly spun out of the of the Bernie Sanders. Two thousand sixteen campaign. They started this group justice dims they recruited, young candidates, Eo C and others, and a few of them want. It was a big deal in all of those young candidates ran on something called the green. who deal which, at the time was very vaguely, were defined as this kind of mobilization and so when they got an office, the idea as we can have a two year period here, where republicans are running everything and nothing's going to pass. There's no there's no legit nothing to be done in these next two years, so let's use these next few years to put together a legislative package on climate.
that democratic and then run on and went on and pass quickly if they win in twenty twenty. That's the sort of strategic logic so, the green new deal solution that air sea and similar at Marcie and others introduced last month or our nor how long ago was now seems like forever vat duck It was just here are the goals of the green new deal. Here are its aspect actions in here are a few of the principles that we are going to guide it. So these are sort of this broad rules and principles that are meant to guide the process of creating policy. That's that that is the intent of the rest.
and so it is only its is very not restrictive, hits hints not policy, as I, as I've said, a million times is just some goals and principles that the whatever policy we come up with has the sort of Hugh to these goals and principles. So one question I have is that I think looking at this and the explain receive written on this seems to be not just a platform from which to launch policy but a platform from which to rethink what the Democratic Party wants to em, size and making it clear that climate change is an emphasis, but, as is the idea of using restricting the american economy towards two hundred percent clean energy as a means to get to full employment through a better economy. So my christian like is this
out. I forward moving shift on climate policy, or is this a short forward? Moving shift for Democrats on everything? Well, both very very much. Both I think it's meant to be a sort of a sort of highlight policy demonstrating what the new with these new young left Democrats are. All about. You know its revenge thing, that the new turn in the Democratic Party is an old turn. Sir, why talk to add Marcie what he said was look at that stuff in the resolution, all the stuff about jobs and health care and in union wages and all this kind of stuff. All of it is taken almost directly from F D, ARS Famous second inaugural, where he sort of made the case that freedom only comes with economic security, he'll freedom only comes with economic security with a job you can rely on that, can feed your family, etc, etc. All those prince
We in the green new deal are lifted almost straight from that document, so since its forward, but in a sense, is also a harking back to a sort of more active governed lead aspirational liberalism generally, but but yes, I think it's and I think that the strategic logic on climate changes. I think sort of like the climate community has realised that climate change in and of itself is never going to be a motivating factor fish and to create the sort of public will necessary to do the big things necessary. So if you want to create that public, will you ve got to yoke climate change to these other things? In other words, you ve got to make sort of like solving climate change, also a programme of national economic.
renewal that can actually promised something to the working people of the United States. So I went out on a busybody four minute because were we're talking at the green new deal, believing defined what it actually says. So, as I understand it and and Davy should expand on this, it really has. We almost might think of his two parts of our people want to say that one part which is one piece of it, is laying out a series of measures and goals. End metrics for are you producing climate policy and are producing climate? Progress is fast enough to court, for the scientific community says you need to do to prevent global warming for getting completely out of control right in and instead of, instead of just kind of backing out like what can we get done it rephrase it as what must we, done that I think, is fair. For the first part, you wanna talk about what those goals are sure sure it's not the resolution. The little a little
in that it sort of drifts close to policy, sometimes and then stays very vague at other times, but in terms of this sort of climate, specific goals adjust focuses on resiliency the ability to two whether damages books on infrastructure, electricity, electricity grids, buildings, the manufacturing sector like in this one section about about de carbon emission. It just gets a little bit into the specifics of all the through economic sectors. You're gonna have to have policy for the high impacts of climate change, reforestation, etc, etc, etc, which are all pretty familiar goals in familiar sort of language in climate policy debates, but there's a speed there too. Right I mean it's not just the illustrious Mary,
trucks. Are it's about how fast we need to go sure everything derives from the speed and that's something I like. I want to emphasize again and again cuz one of those for the fatal kind of fuzziness. The fuzziness of the climate conversation comes from this or the fuzziness about goals. Cuz the goal of reducing emissions is one thing, and it's wildly easy to achieve. If, super super easy to reduce emissions a little bit right. So how much are we reducing them and how fast- and so the whole point of this is to peg this at this sort of IPCC go and then work backwards. from there? So, yes, you get familiar, Sir tranches of policy, but much more sort of aggressive and again much more kind of government led because that's how you get the speed and again also this the social parts to that that you're gonna get to next are also serve derived from the speed. The idea
If we're gonna do something this big, this fundamental to our economy? This fast there's gonna be a massive amount, disruption? There's no way around that there's no talking around that you're going to have whole region's whole industries disrupted whole. You know economy's that you served micro economies disrupted and if you want people to go along with that, if you want the american people to sign up for that, go along with it, you need to promise them that you'll keep them safe. Ieu will protect their healthcare you'll, make sure they have a job if they, if they want one you'll, make sure that the job it had pays decent wages, etcetera, etcetera, so
everything's sort of falls out of the speed. So he is a Barnett social policy so as to the other things that it says, the green new deal must have as its has put guaranteeing a job in a family, sustaining wage, adequate family disability, leave, publications and retirement secured to all people of the United States, strengthening protecting the right of workers to organise unionized and collectively bargain and acting in enforcing trade rules, procurement standards employer adjustments with strong labour environmental protections, ensuring a commercial environment where every business person is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic, our international monopolies, providing all members of society with high quality health care, affordable, safe and adequate housing, economic security and access to clean water, air, healthy and affordable, food and nature, and so in this way they really- I really got role in there to Europe, so shall we go,
said of this. He said the green new deal, what it means to be progressive, and that actually seems to me like the thing that has made. It makes sense to me it's a vision of just how do you define progressive ism? Were climate changes in the driver's seat to James Point of prayer decision and in these, while the other parts of the green new deal seems much more like a statement of an like an idiot logical agenda like what does it mean to be a member of this of this eighty logical tendency in America in twenty nineteen? It's a bid to define that more than it seems to me to be a policy statement or even a policy agenda. It seems in some ways it s south itself, defining because, in the sense that it think these all these pieces early hour link together, where it seems that this is. This is a fully rounded platform, but it does not seem to be itself a fully rounded policy platform. It's like a fully rounded reconsideration of what it means to be a Democrat you're in its at its very much
The new deal was right, a sort of like a whit. We were facing a sort of crisis. The set of circumstances in this country that have us, you know, get a bunch of veteran returning from war war. We got all this going on and we need a sort of new compact among us of how we're going to treat other and how we're going to do. What's going to mean to be an american citizen- and I think the green new deal is has those lofty aspirations is certainly not no one's going to create a green new deal bill has universal health care and unionization and anti monopoly? No provisions in it. I don't think it. envisions as being a bill, or even I mean it's it. As you say, it's an agenda, a definition of what it means to be what it means to be a liberal. I think it's an attempt to sort of president liberals with an alternative to sort of this tepid Do you know ideas? Word neo liberalism advocates ban that word on this package. Well I I love I loved or NEO liberalism, the sort of work,
but whatever you call, we have now It is an alternative that actually does get to make another thing I just came thinking is that the original new deal, which we can actually break into two parts, because there was the first new deal, one thousand nine hundred and thirty three one thousand nine hundred and thirty four. We think of the first hundred days and major banking reform, like basically in a direct response to what caused the great depression in the eyes of President Roosevelt and a bunch of other Democrats second new deal, which would result in social security and labour relations. All of this is reflective of something that I think was widely recognised by everyone who wasn't Herbert Hoover as a catastrophe and actual real life giant catastrophe that took part one over a specific unit of time. It happened to virtually everywhere
YO. There has been a lot of really interesting writing about how the new deal in some ways help to hinder the rise of american fascism, which was on on the map, indignation, thirty, four nineteen. Thirty five did their targets, intent right, part of its internal dangling. What are the biggest meant? and I think something that's fascinating is attempting to Coralie the green deal with the original did new deal. I think that something I keep thinking about is how we talk about climate change as a real crisis. You ve written about this, a lot that it is indeed a crisis, I'm interested to see how the people who are thinking through that the green new deal who can trying to make policy out of it, are trying to make the same argument about the immediacy of the crisis, because I think that it's been a big challenge, and I know you you ve written on this, and I've talked to conservatives about. This is just that you, even when you get conservatives
with climate changes real and it is man, made the idea and it's time for immediate government action. That's the part that seems to be a separation, and so I kind of have to questions on this one. How? How do you bring that immediacy to bear and two if this is something that you with this as something that's not going to result in a green new deal bill? This is supposed to be something that's about restructuring, what it means to be a progressive. How does that work in brass tacks? Politics when you are being opposed by Say Lindsey, Graham well. These are those are very good questions. Kid you're right that these severe of world war to a sort of self self evident right. It did not need much argument made on its behalf, But you know I've been watching climate people wrestle with exactly this problem for twenty years now in its in its it's. The the severity of the crisis in a sense has always been of
able to those who go looking at the information right and it's all about communicating it. I dont know why, if it's just sort of like plugging away for so long or what or, if its young people coming up into more positions of power, what exactly shifting, but something about this last IPCC report, the one they came out last year, something about that report broke through in a way that all the previous IPCC reports hadn't really in regard to the urgency, because it sort of what the IPCC report did, that sort of kicked all this office. It was looking at the difference between holding will temperature rise to two degrees celsius, which is sort of in the traditional target of climate politics and holding it to one point five degrees celsius which as well sort of low lying countries and vulnerable countries are saying is necessary to protect them. This is
debate in there in the U N, it's one of the official language in the Paris agreement is hold it to to make all possible efforts to hold it to one point five. So the question was what what's the big deal? What's the big deal about this point, five degree difference and that's what the IPCC report is about an it turns out, the difference we one point five into is hundreds of millions of lives, entire ecosystems. The world's coral hit turns Is it really matters a lot? And so how do we hold it? To one point: five: that's where these sort of ten year, twelve year, goals that you hear thrown around by the green new deal, people that's where those are derived from so so just to make this clear because there's a lot of confusion about this wandering around the internet. The IPCC said: if you want to hold temperature rise to one point, five degrees.
CS, which a sort of what justice demands, the only way to do that is to completely de carbonized the world globally. By mid century by twenty fifty and to get on a trajectory to do that you need to be about halfway there by twenty thirty, so world needs to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by half by twenty thirty, that's the sort of official IPCC goal. So that's reference in the green new deal, but also there is an additional consideration which is cause debate in the last couple weeks. If the world needs to dig overnight by twenty, five how should the remaining emission that were allowed be divided up. It makes sense that developing countries who have Had the long runway we ve had and haven't the use of unlimited fossil fuels like we got and are behind in our time bring people out of poverty deserve more those emissions. So
if everybody has the de carbonized twenty fifty developing countries need to go fast. to leave more room, more slack for developing countries and that's where this goal of twenty thirty Deckard innovation comes from. That's what the green new deal activists are pushing their saying on an equity basis, the? U S needs to move faster than other countries. It needs to get all the way to total decolonization by twenty thirty. That is the level of urgency that I can't quite sign onto but it's fantastical, but but so the urgency. A sort of I guess what I'm saying is a lot more evident now and I think a lot more publicly understood ended in a part of that is because of a green new deal with shoving it into the spotlight. So let's get really concrete here, though, if we wanted to de carbonized America or eighty percent de carbonized America by twenty thirty
does doesn't look like for me for you for somebody living in Ohio for somebody living in California. For somebody living in Florida, I mean that's, that's that's a guy can settle words that I don't think means a lot to people, but Sometimes you hear to say that we can do it like getting ready for climate change, averting climate change. We just had the well it's fine, and sometimes you get this kind of its a world war, two style, complete overhaul of the american economy and intense mobilization such eighty, a federal jobs, guarantee to make sure we don't have bread lines in the street. So what are we looking at like paint a picture for me of what America would have to do to meet any of those goals? The honest answer from anyone? The? U S, aggression to is, I don't know. No one knows
what that's going to look like it's two thousand and twenty I mean by two thousand and thirty. We did. We don't have much time to figure it out what I want to say what I mean my immune. This is just my opinion and opinions on this very considerably, but I think the IPCC goal of of totally carbonization by two thousand and fifty and halfway there by twenty thirty is right out at the edge, maybe even a little past, the edge of what is even conceivable to me in the context of american society and politics, sort of like how fast could we possibly push that's about as fast as I can envision, total decarbonization by two thousand and thirty is, if is a different, not just in ray, but in kind. So so, for instance, there are all kinds of energy applications for which we do not yet have a zero carbon alternatives in are unlikely to have them within ten years. So, if you want to say totally
de carbonized, the airline industry by twenty thirty, a lot of that is going to involve just not letting people fly right in theirs in there are industrial processes that we do yet know how to de carbonized, and if you get to twenty thirty in there still going you just shut them down, so I'm not even convinced that do doing it by twenty thirty would involve something like martial law. It would involve something like the government, literally taking control of multiple industries deliberately shutting them down deliberately abandoning Billy. of dollars in assets, fossil fuel assets that have not depreciated yet it it That said mean something like I don't want say: police date, but something something along those lines of urgency, like a total total gum. Take over and management of the economy, and even even if we could manage that, it would be difficult to do by twenty thirty,
You think insisting on it by twenty thirty is kind of crazy. You can define yourself you sort of useful write yourself out of a combination of you that, but but opinions differ. Sort of sunrise movement. The youth movement behind the green new deal has taken it upon itself to sort of defined this as the edge their insisting on twenty thirty, and that's why they have criticised some of the plans so far I think, if we, if the? U S, could totally de carbonized by twenty fifty. That would be the greatest collective accomplishment in all of human history. If it's a really really really big thing is really fast to do it by twenty fifty doing it by twenty thirty is like orwellian something is on the conceivable menu of possibilities, absent like a meteor striking or I don't even know what would I don't know what would enable that, but to me like twenty. Fifty is absolutely like a stretch
all that we can wrap our minds around and sort of plant around in some sort of coherent way. Yet so I want to move a little bit within the green new deal, but away from the specifics of climate. To talking about you made the point that green new deal involving so many large scale, investments would make it a programme that you and to quote you can involve everyone and help everyone theoretically gain support from everyone, even those in red states who do not care about climate change. Can you talk a little bit me about the girl You deal as jobs programme because I think that it is interesting how you're, starting to see a couple of twenty twenty candidates- and I've heard this from a couple of Canada. have been somewhat appealing to some on the right that the idea of kind of you d Turning to new deal, the original new deal programmes that basically encouraged the federal government
get involved in encouraging hiring and jobs. Guarantee is of real interest specifically for people who are very concerned with having very low unemployment, the with the fact that we have very low unemployment rate, but that doesn't necessarily bear out in whether not people are working in the way they want to be rude or working good jobs right. This is this is sort of one area of the green new deal that is both kind of packed with pride, but also a little bit of a rorschach blood. So the notion that you want to design a national climate policy such that it creates a bunch of jobs, is old hat, that's been in areas where democratic climate plan or agenda are white paper in history and is in every kind of plan that being released by candidates today, the real,
I think the green new deal resolution freak people out. Isn't it went beyond that sort of boilerplate language about let's focus on creating lots of good high, paying jobs and said, let's guarantee that everybody gets a good high paying job in that and that kind of the flipped everybody's lead. It got a bunch of economists, including even some progressive economists, sort of arguing about whether the feds could actually manage something like dad or whether it was something we that is even possible. I think, is probably at this stage to early to get hung up on the word guarantee, I think instead, we just need to think about what kind of government policy creates a bunch of and even on that there's several categories. So, in a sense, if you create a bunch of regulatory mandates, forcing the utilities to clean up our cars to clean up our industry, to clean up
you're going to create a bunch of new products. New, cleaner products and new, cleaner industries are going to create jobs by forcing economic change at all innocence, but I think what the green new deal people want. At least, I think the activists at the heart of this green new deal thing have this sort of more old fashioned, dim notion of reviving you manufacturing, so the idea is stand up our manufacturing base. So we are the ones manufacturing the solar panels in turbines and electric vehicles, and that and that's how you restore these good jobs that appeal to people in Middle America and then, of course, there beyond that, there's just brute force a job creation, something like INA government program that just hires thousands of people to go plant trees. You know there's also that as an option on the far end, so exactly what people are supporting on the job creation
front is a little fuzzy. But I think everybody is united around the notion that clean energy is they may be the only way we really see of stimulating enough manufacturing activity in enough old school sort of physical economic activity to create good jobs. I think that's conventional wisdom. Almost at this point, I let's take a break, and then I want to come back and talk a bit about the political theory behind this project. It feels like you, don't even have hours in the day to get everything done, might because you're missing out on three where those two hours cup I we fell into a deep, dark abyss that opens up when we switch between work at those
we hours to all the productive time we miss out on thanks to at home distractions, disorganization fatigue. It's no wonder the days future work should work with clear up. It does look up as a flexible productivity platform, the wings or you work at one place. That's all you chats apps docks and ass. One centralized place like Michigan from companies like Goober Google. You cook up to make the days more managed projects, people and goals more effectively, but for teams of all sizes industries cook up to pleasingly fast feature. One thousand plus integrations must have for anyone wanting to track, manage and tackle their work in one place. You're always back with clear up trade free today took up the dot com, slash weeds. If you like, basically anyone listening to this right now, I'm willing to bet that you are you're dealing with stress can visit of it like an overwhelming amount, or maybe it's more like a low but steady drumbeat background stress. Remember how you are experiencing stress: it's likely effect
mood you energy in so many other areas of your life. You feel, like stress, is starting to take over straining relationships and shorten your temper. It's probably tend to unload and better health is perfect, for that better help is customized online therapy that offers videophone and even live chat sessions which therapists she wrote see anyone on camera. If you don't want you it's much more affordable than in person therapy in stark communicating with a therapist none. Forty
hours on the distress using its unbiased feedback. You be pretty surprise when you can gain for it see if it's for you, the weeds, sponsored by better help and listeners get ten percent off the first month, better help dot com such weeds, that's, B, e, T, T, R, H, e L, a p d come slash, weeds art. So let's start here Dave what what is the political theory that the green new deal? Proponents have four for the green new deal like how do they explain what they're doing here and why it will work sure the best ways to serve word backwards. The status quo in american politics right now is gridlock.
And it looks like all the forces driving that are robust and only expected to continue and and and, as you know very well as are the structure of U S. Politics puts us in this fifty fifty nation, and so even if dims take the presidency and the House and the Senate in twenty twenty, which is very very far from pure thing. You know Mcconnell just gonna filibuster every bill, like you did with Obama like he said he was going to do and then did so so if things stay the way they are in America, Dixon, I mean in broad terms the sort of balance of power where we get nothing nothing's going to happen, and in this I want to be like DR this home. The choice here is not asking for some
big massive thing like the green new deal and getting nothing or asking first small, incremental steps and getting small incremental steps. There's no reason to think that Mcdonald going to sign off on small incremental steps either the default here is nothing and if you understand the urgency of climate change and that the the the real suffering it's going to impose and the speed at which is acting in a sort of crucial window of time, we're in right. Now that is disastrous. That's just disastrous for the! U S to abdicate action and leadership at this juncture is just disastrous. So the question is what can break us out of their? So it's not going to be me
Judging right, the climate people tried every version of messaging under the sun. Dims are obsessed with messaging in framing, but clearly that's not gonna. Do it. It's just power is going to do it. The stumps. Some form of power has got to break up this terrible balance, and so what power do we have access to on the left on the green left its people power right, we don't have reliable billionaires. Really, we don't have a giant centuries old, fossil fuel industry in all its attendant depended industries. We don't have any of that. All we have is people, so how can we get a people? Movement, grass roots surge going that is sufficiently strong that it can overwhelm this gridlock kill the filibuster maybe even carry along some republican working people, or at least
rob because on the defensive scare them about this, put them on the defensive and break the the the gridlock that way from outside. In so, if you, you feel you this or two thousand eight to two thousand in democratic climate bill strategy, it was kind of the ultimate the ultimate version of of inside out start with corporate actors, start with businesses start with the centrists reach out to the reasonable people. On the other side start in the center work out from there just a spectacular failure. I think everyone agrees because there's no centre left the Republican Party has no centre left, there's no one to talk to any more so what's left is outside in. I think, if you ask the
if it's involved, they're going to tell you yeah we're super confident that this is going to work. We're confident we're going to get through this movement started. It's going to scare the crap out of the democratic establishment, they're going to kill the filibuster and then they're going to go crazy, passing ambitious bills. It's obviously a long shot, but but the alternative to the longshots is stasis and gridlock and disaster. So you catch a bunch of times, but as far as I can tell, the green new deal doesn't say anything about doing that and a bunch of people say that support the green new deal. Don't support killing the filibuster so that it seems like I mean something, even less than tables. Seems to me like before. He could even think about anything you gotta think about the filibuster here, but of the many things in the green new deal from guaranteeing every American Jobbed passing Medicare for all the filibusters
and here- and I guess I don't know what had Marcie in the filibuster, he may be a proponent of of reforming it, but a bunch of people. Commanded said, therefore, the green New Deal core Booker and others. They dont support getting rid of the filibuster, so people it doesnt seem to me that for all of the ideological policing happening around this proposal, that is actually part of for reasons, I generally don't understand. I share your your mystification. India obsession with the subject. I dont know what Corey Booker thinking I mean I literally I cannot reconstruct in my head a code here. It line of reasoning that can lead Corey Booker to the conclusion that he's, even in my charitable. I dont know what he could possibly be thinking or or closure who said the other day like I can get republican cooperation. Oh how and and if so, why but you in the last ten years? I just don't know what
singing. I asked at Marcie directly actually about that, and he and he basically Dodd. She said we don't have to decide that now, let's, let's make that decision once we win so so I think one thing is: I'm not sure that any politician, or at least a lot of politicians, are necessarily saying what they honestly think about the filibuster I think what sort of strategic thinking going on here. Should we reveal that we're after this? Should we give Mcconnell anyway ideas, I don't know exactly what the thinking is inside the democratic establishment, and I dont know why the activists are not more exercised about this other than this were general fact very hard to get. People worked up about procedural issues, but but like you, I think if you leave the filibuster in place, none of this matters. It's a hall talk, it's all empty talk. That's that's the one to me that you're right that's table stakes for anything else. To happen big or small, so that actually leads me to something at so
weeds Facebook group, which is always a den of thoughtful commentary, and and I mean that that sounded more sarcastic than I meant it somewhat shave on our greatly. I dont mean too I'm broken inside, but anyway, some ruptured, Hove of of intelligent, commenter ethnic miserly, but good Jeff weights on our Facebook page asked I'd like a good analysis of the pragmatists and political economy of marrying economic justice with climate change, mitigation and you'd know tell that to have a natural synergy and that sink looking at the green new deal as a kind of this overall revolution, that's going to transform our political economy from top to bottom, and I think that that matches, because we were talking about how ok we're not obviously going be your Democrats are not going to be able to find common cause in this particular issue, with Republicans in this time or ever, but you're the democratic basis,
we keep having this conversation over and over again, is not as progressive as a lot of people think it is so I'm interested of how tying together you I'm new if a little concerned. But perhaps about that idea- that economic justice and full employment tying that, together with climate change mitigation efforts. How do you view that all working too there are, may think that when we were talking about that, is the cab reconsider conceiving of what it means to be a progressive, but who does that's it? I felt that seems to leave out a lot of people who think of themselves as part of the democratic constituency you're a very good question- and I heard her firm- I don't know- turn board great answers to it. But I think it's it again. It depends on whether you're looking at this as an inside out or an outside in effort, if you're starting inside out starting at the center, then yes, you do what the democratic policy approach to this has been now for twenty years,
which is Strip away everything not directly climate related and strip away any use of revenue, any sort of hint of policy that might offend Republicans right, what does do a carbon tax and then will give revenue directly back, we won't grow the government. We won't do it regulations the sort of endless effort to craft a climate policy that is so denuded of anything else that so laser focus on carbon. That no one have any reason to complain about it. It will get support that way. From Republicans that way, that's been the opera for a long time and I've seen a lot of climate people begging, pleading arguing in a bar down. Their policy asks
again and again and again in its just been an absolute and total failure. The hoped for support from fiscal conservatives has not come forth in any number at all. It failed Washington state, it's it's not going anywhere in Congress that approach. All that's done is made Democrats, water down their solutions and water down their rhetoric for nothing for nothing, then I'll give you credit for it. They don't get any support for it. So, let's not pretend that that's the successful way to do it. That's what's been tried and failed. So this alternate strategy is just outside in so the kind of things that get ordinary people excited are different than the kind of things they get Washington insiders excited. So if you yoke these kinds of policies together, it scares away DC. Insiders scares awaits interest because it seems like additive
makes it more difficult? But if you look at poles of the public, the more of these things you yoke together the more they like it. Take when that, when the new deal, resolution was first released. They did a bunch of pulling a bunch of people, including data for progress. Did a bunch of polling testing this language in testing it against counter mess. And even saying, even if it costs a lot of money. Like really really stress testing all these parts of the green new deal and they
all through the roof. They were getting like. Seventy percent across demographics, people like jobs that they like national purpose. They like clean energy, everybody loves clean energy, everybody likes good jobs. Everybody would like you know, tat to have health care that wasn't a giant hassle and wasn't threatened with vanishing if you lose a job. So so those things add support public support, but they seem to subtract support from sort of insider politicians and that's the dilemma and I think the choice of the green new deal people just the former strategy, hasn't it work and isn't gonna work. So All that is left is the latter strategy sort of make this into a big vision, a big, exciting vision that so tangible and so clear that it can activate and interests people who aren't that into politics and who don't follow politics very much activate a public ground swell,
and that more than anything will shift those those insiders. That's that that's the play. That's the idea is so that their couple things here, they think are tricky one. I really think allotted this approach to pulling it wrong. The one thing that I believe in pulling is it just depending on how you asked a question you will get whatever answer you want, and I must anybody's doing bad pulling her think? Actually, the pulling out of politics is done, is good and there's a good work here. You can get some information, but the recent Deasey insiders Blanche at this kind of thing is it they ve seen how goes before you start with something seems very popular. We're gonna, pass healthcare insurance and more paper. Gonna have healthcare, and it's like that pose great universe. Healthcare has always pulled great you, no more people getting healthcare is always cultivated, always pose great, and then you get into the debate and will actually but like by hospital or wait. You did tummy there again be higher taxes to do this health caught it under the gave it have to pay anything for this health care
wait there's an individual mandate now, so I have to get health care or you gonna, take away my private insurance or wait. I bought a shit policy for years ago. The dressing cover anything but it's cheap. I can have that like you're gonna. Take that away from me, even if you're giving me so I don't trust your subsidies, they got it like you, their death, rattle. Sarah Palin told me she told me there that out on Spooky pulled me their death panels, and they would, I literally put that on Facebook, if it wasn't true or the right, you can't, I mean Mark Zuckerberg, would never let you put something on Lisbon and that the difficulty with this kind of conflict expansion is it every single. One of these things has a counter argument to begin scaring people and, moreover, like the experience, a lot of people have of trying to pass he's, really really big bills. Is it once you really get into the guts
people get nervous about the government. Doom bigwigs, don't like the government much my goddamn look at rightly look at Washington, it's crazy that people are totally trusted to do huge things, and so the fear, I think a lot of people have, is that when you begin a catching all these things, how do you do a jobs guarantee who gets that guarantee? What happens in people begin longing about the folks you don't deserve? Who, like in the public, mind don't deserve to get their job guaranteed. You know what about the people don't show up to the job right, like you get all these things that are going to be part of the counter attack and off he tied the whole thing to everything relic passing one big thing is really really hard. Passing lots of big roses is even harder, so, on the other hand it if there is evidence that you'd mobilise this mass movement great but also isn't really evidence of that I mean it it does. We don't have a lot of examples, mobilization of that level. Is it the continuous white whale
politics, and always always everywhere. People say that it's because the under idea? It was an ambitious enough or was in order not to compromise, to or like the politician forgot what they were doing, but actually to think it's hard. I think that the recent we don't have more and better examples of this kind of mass mobilization round leftist policies up ending american politics, is because its heart like why? Don't we have single parent Vermont right now, but cause mass mobilization is really hard, and so I am not against the green new deal, a sort of like to me. It reads right now, as your creating like they used to be a new deal democratic, acquitting that he of the Green New deal Democrat. But I too am very sceptical. This mass mobilization theory- I don't see why haven't seen it in the states in this way, like you know, occasional, gets a MAC, there's a like a bold initiative for minimum wage or something a novel. Do really well do better than the Democrats do and it provides
sucker for this fiery, when you get to the really big, ambitious F, you just don't see a California's tried single parent of different directions and just other kinds of help, expansion, two different directions, and it keeps not going through despite it not being very heavily compromised down there. So there's something in here about the kind of leftist critique of how much power tends to control political outcomes, which I think is correct, depressing, and then this idea it'll be swept away and you don't. You do any kind of accommodation without power, and I just I'm not necessarily saying I have like a different answer, but I dont know that this one seems as convincing to me as if people want to make it ought to be.
I'll start this way. If you want to look at the examples of what seems to work, look at the state's you elect a bunch of Democrats, so they're in charge, and then the public is like ya: do something about climbing clean energy in the in the lawmakers? Go off and work out the details and the public doesn't care much and the ended in the blood makers pass it in the public was like yeah. You did something about climate change and everyone's happy. Like that's the model that works right, put Democrats in charge, the public doesn't actually want or need to be super involved in the details of the policy, but that it is isn't foolproof at the state level, but it but a pair, impossible, the federal level because of the filibuster and everything else. So so your left with crappy implausible options, and I totally agree with you. I did there's one thing. I want to emphasise that it wants her step. I think you left out there that crucial here, sir, so you start with a big broad, positive ideas like that
and they pull well and you're. Absolutely right leg. You can get positive pulled numbers for positive things like clean energy at good. I like it like the jobs. Like what more money more good things. Yes, what about bad things? Oh, no! It like those we ate like you! Can you can do it ever pulled numbers you want, but what you said is Voters start hearing this in start hearing that and they start hearing this been they started? You know like that. Doesn't just occurred them. These fears about we policies, don't just sort of spontaneously occurred people their driven into their heads in this is wrote a post about this. The other day is right. Now the right has a giant machine, a giant
multi faceted media think tank social media machine. That is devoted to shaping public opinion in a conservative way, which usually just means scaring. The shit are people, but the left has no such machine. The left is sort of dependent on court, unquote, objective, mainstream report, to convey its perspective. You know and how many of these were cable news panels. Have we seen what sort of a that the debate is between objective mainstream journalists? and right wing video logs. That sort of like this, the ideological span you get in in DC politics. So yes, it's true. Any big good idea that dims come up with anything demonstrated do period full stop the right has the ability to utterly poison it in in the heads of
Roughly forty percent give or take of the electorate almost immediately at will. They left does not have the commensurate ability to fire up any sort of intensity of support. Any of the same sort of, like you know, mobilized active freaked out support that might counter that intensity of opposition so is low. Is that structural media asymmetry is there there's no good solution, there's no, there's no message that will sell itself right. There's! No! There's no policy! It can't be lied about or demagogues, there's no way to make these things You too, that unless you have some sort, machine to counter the other machine you're permanently. Structurally added. Disagree each year and there are no good answers, so I dont a good answer for you. But but you know no, I don't believe it Jane
I feel like you're, more learn it on this side of left and right, deep histories and then David. I said what do you think about these theories of of mass mobilization in in contemporary politics, What would you look to as an example for that working or failing? Historically, it's it's a complicated issue, because the item? You won't even using a term like mass mobilization. I would ask who is the mass, because your one we're talking the pulling numbers were reflecting deployment neighbours, our reflective of whose getting pulled in these specific instances? And so I was I was
collecting. On your example of Washington State and I interviewed, Jaynes lay which you can find in a past episode of the reclined show, and we talked about some of the failures that have happened in Washington State with regard to the cap, that car tab fee fiasco and a couple of other aspects, because I think that something that I notice one with regard to kind of conservative media infrastructure, its fascinating, because I you I've been talking a lot about how a lot of concern of media is not so much pro conservative as its focused on a fulcrum of anti, whatever liberals are doing, and so, when you ask okay like what is your response, the idea that they dont need to have a response, because conservatism, I think in some ways at this point in movement conservatism, is pretty okay with stasis and is ok, yeah, because the idea of conservatism, ear, there's the famous William F Buckley, quote about the outstanding athwart. His history yelling, stop
no rang out redress reverse now right here, you ve gotta get well. I think that there's you'd you try to stop you can and then on the things you can't reverse you say you're a libertarian now the line and so you're. My my question, though, is: I think that that the issue that you up earlier about Ezra did about how your people are supportive of these policies until it then tell their like audio. What about my taxes and you sell that in with Washington State as well, how even green policies on them, the most local of bases with vote, those who think of themselves as being really focused on climate issues. Europe people are not you, it's kind of climate issues, or my ability to get my car where I needed to be to do the things I need to do. I think I'm a terrible person,
because I'm like whatever happened, a practicality, and I, but I do. I am curious as to your thoughts on that issue, as I think that that something that I think conservative conservatives have a fascinating ability to both attempt to mimic what they think the public is our they sang and then make the public say it now. You ve done some really great writing on how Fox NEWS as influence the perception of the green new deal, a percent you're, the green new deal, the hat that resulted in anything. Yet you know it's like this point, a concept and then you hear from commentators on the right that, like you, people are already opposed to this day
when they are the only people talking about the thing there are opposing so, but I am curious about how you think about this when you see something like what happened in Washington State or you see on the local level, certain climate mitigation efforts being getting bogged down, and I think that the current year, someone raised in the Facebook thread the issue of nuclear energy, and I think that something where I am. I would be really fascinated here, you're take on how nuclear replay into this, and how does the EL in on a larger, since how the elements of practicality play into these into these concepts. On the look level. Yeah. That's that's a lot, and I don't great answer them, and I think that it that the experience of Washington is really it is really interesting. So easily was governor, democratic governor and did not have full control of both houses for a long time. Republicans had control the Senate for a long time, and so what happened? Nothing initially tried a bunch of stuff they blocked at all. Nothing. Then we tried to cycles in a road
erect to voter ballot initiatives right. One was very sort of fiscally conservative, a fully refunded carbon tax with thing else involved that would give all the revenue back very sort of very sort of inoffensive to any centrist or or conservative, but whatever the but would have reduced greenhouse gases a tonne to voters rejected that. Then we went back the next time around with a ballot initiative. That was one of the opposite approach. It would, it would be very revenue positive. It would raise a bunch of money and then spend the money on clean energy projects and clean water problem, even had a list, a map here, all communities. Local communities in Washington. There are going to receive this investment that are gonna that are going to see tangible, immediate improvements from this programme
a much more of a green new deal model sort of like we're. Gonna tax, we're gonna, spend we're gonna do this together and they rejected that almost with the same numbers almost as though the total one. Eighty flip in policy approach didn't make any difference at all, and really just people did not want to pull the trigger on imposing a climate policy on themselves and yet the very next cycle. They voted a bunch Democrats into office. Italy now has both houses and so Washington just passed a whole slate of clean energy bills that are absolutely as or more ambitious than either of those ballot. Initiatives that are absolute like whatever fear you may have had about any of that past of should have been triggered by this stuff, but but a people elected than Mcgrath and
people? Are our thrilled and hailing the Democrats for doing this? All of which is to make my point that, like I think, I'm a kind of a bad person tube leaking this g, but I have, I really think that most people just there like, I believe, climates, a problem. I don't want it friggin deal with it. I don't want to think about it. Don't ask me about the pot just do something about it. Like just do something about it. I think that's what people, I think, that's about the depth of most people's opinion on this absolutely like. If you ask people I get out of your house right ear, senator about this, I go out in March, I get excited and advocate for it most people won't the so the question is: does the left have the ability, in the face of fox at all, in the face of sort of centrist democrat indifference in the face of Total Neil List Right Wing opposition to reach a core of people and get them into
sleep supportive of this build a core of tints support that can rival the intense right wing base because it to Ezra question like if you look where's the mass movement in the last that worked in the last several decades was the tea party right and how it worked is they built a giant media machine and scared the shit out of the nation's old people, and then they got really excited. Look how low the national debt is. Now, yes, I was this really my friends, I what you mean by the word, where I guess successes, let's take, let's take a break and then I want to come back because I actually do think there's a viable political theory here, and I want to make the argument for it. This episode is brought to you by fan dual football is, back and the best bet you can make is downloading the Federal Sports Bookshop. It doesn't matter. If new to gambling or an old pro fan. Dual has something for everyone and as an official,
sports betting partner of the NFL, you know you're, better, safe, there's, also never been a better time to use fan do because right now you'll get up to one thousand dollars back, if your first, but doesn't when you can even too a small wager into a big payday with the same game. Parlay that just sign up with a promo code Spotify place? Your first bet risk free on fan. Dual sports book download fan dual today. Twenty one and present in Pennsylvania. First online, real money wager only refund who does not withdrawal side credit that expires in fourteen days. Restrictions apply, see terms at sports booked out, fan dual dotcom gambling problem call one eight hundred gambler this episode is brought to you by wind outcome the days standing in the wine I'll staring aimlessly at a wall of line without a clue are over gotta. Why not come and take the perfect bottle with confidence? Every time filter, yours urged by price and professional ratings, read reviews and even chat with real wine exports for recommendations. It's the world
largest wine, store delivered to your door, and if you sign up stewardship membership you'll get free shipping year round on every order get fifty dollars off your first. order by going to wind, not calm, Slash Spotify terms apply. So there is this argument about popular mobilization and thus helping to pass a green new deal, and I think I've put myself on record, I'm skeptical of it, but the
and to say that I don't think there is an argument here and I think it relates Dave to what you're just saying he. Here's how I see this potentially playing out if there is the possibility of a good outcome here, is that what you're really seeing is not in an effort to change the views of the mass public, most of whom are now paying any attention to this, and many of whom don't like it, even if they are on its to change the views of the Democratic Party itself to two jaynes point. It is to change what the Democratic Party does and doesn't prioritize its de change. The incentives for better work, a quarry, Booker Joe Biden for that matter. Right people want to be on the green new deal train because they don't want to get primarily they want to get support. They want to co, sponsor something with a Cassio Cortez, whatever it might be, and so what your first doing is changing the nature of the Democratic Party, so that if the Democratic Party has
opportunity to govern which may not, but if it does then, instead of spending that opportunity on healthcare first or road uneasy ipc expansion or whatever it might be they're going to spend it on climate, and I think that's confusing in this document, because it's got this whole back section of universal job guarantees and Medicare for all, you and redoing labour, organizing laws, but but I think that what the green like abstracted out with a green new deal, effort really is, is trying to push Democrats towards a more ambitious idea of climate policy and also trying to get them to prioritize at such that, like everybody else as a green new deal now can be one piece of legislation, so the peace it's going to go first at a moment when maybe you do, for whatever reason
A rare instant when you can govern is going to be this, but that to me is why I do harp on things like the filibuster. So there are a lot of arguments right now about what the Democratic Party should be should be new Democrats or renew dealt Democrats. Should it be democratic socialists or NEO liberals or progressive or liberals, or should it be about identity? Politics just went economics whether all these debates about with a democratic party should be, and I'm running a piece about this, but before you can really have any outcome of those debates that have occurred at party needs to be about democracy.
Needs to be about allowing a majority to govern successfully because a majority can govern and a majority. The only kind of power Democrats are likely to have in an overwhelming way, then there's stuff in for it. You're not gonna, get the little things done, you're, not gonna, get the big ones done, and so to me the frustration that I have with the green new deal project. Is it so focused on mass mobilization on that? It's not focused enough on what would have happened if you mobilized ass is like. How would you change political structures such as mass mobilization would actually be an effective mobilization, even if you got there where I do think it has been extraordinarily effective? Is it has moved the Democratic party elites? I mean take your point about elites, be no not being a borderless like. Increasingly, they are increasing of a you know, members of the Senate for Democrats of the House ramparts. They at least want to pledge fealty to this, even if they they would not probably endorse every specific,
come or their moderate alternatives to this are our like wildly ambitious relative to even the far left like five years ago. So that feels to me, like actually part of the project. If you can get the Democratic Party to a place where it would, if it had the opportunity to govern it, would do climate first and it would do something big on climate. That is a huge, unbelievable achievement. That was not true three years ago. Right, that's not what would have happened three years ago and the Democratic Party had the opportunity of govern as it I think the question becomes one. Had you get that opportunity to govern and two are the structure is: are you gonna do something about the structures such it? They allow you to govern when you get in there, but but to tell all this, but all Rourke and J insular have come out with policy ideas that they say, are green new deal inflected that they say are equal to scale the challenge, and yet I want to get your take on. The stage is certainly my impression that these are much more ambitious climate proposals. Then we saw in two thousand and sixteen or twenty twelve or even
the or two thousand and eight totally Toby, I think, that's all right. I think that's all right about moving moving the policy conversation among Democrats. I think it's absolutely right that this, for the first time has created kind of a real moment. damn within the party that Democrats finally feel like they can't ignore it, and that's in that's an you're right. It's a remarkable achievement. It is remarkable that they did it. I mean in the comparative blink of an eye. Witness was like amazing they, basically when certain policies office in overnight, like overnight the? U S political system is obsessed with climate change overnight. Democrats are like arguing about a change in the headlines. Every day which is like I've been waiting and waiting for this to happen. So so it was a swift kick in the ass. It actually worked to with people up and get people talking totally. I don't know if it's fair to to be frustrated with the green new deal. People at this as it is
just be frustrated with the whole left about doesn't mean everything you say about the green new deal, true about literally any policy primarily have what is alive always regressive ended with everybody about the subject. I should I share that I'm an equal here they made it look, will offer to needy harangue or about the Philippa. Yes, all should be harangued about it and they all should have it as a part of their. They should all habit is a part of their platform, no matter what sort of policy area there going after. I totally agree with that the question is, if you're, if you're looking for a practical road to policy at the FAO, low level. Well, let me let me talk about NATO and Anna and Jane zero quick, so there actually quite an interesting contrasts, especially to throw down the weeds part upon weight, is upon pardon the reference of climate policy so beta. We sort of
not a climate guy, I think it's fair to say he doesn't have much of a history on. He doesn't have much of a record on. It's not clearly not a thing that like animates him, and so he is his policy that it came out with was was someone described it as the movement had a baby with a consultant which I think is exactly right? Sort of there's a lot of sort of like old school. Democratic consultant speak about mobilizing private investment, and you know on: reaching markets and all these sort of all these sort of like trigger words that that that democratic consultants in its interests, democratic people, love to hear, but at the same time it was the green new deal that was that that that the route but it was an investment led, a policy that the headline Pisa was we're gonna mobilise five trillion dollars in investment, and that is the legacy
the green new deal, so it sort of like how can I take this green new deal and give it kind of conventional democratic sheen, so that I can please the kind of green new deal people and then also please sort of conventional group that I have taken place in the Democratic party. So I mean at as Qua policy. It's not that interesting and I think it'll be ephemeral and like no one will remember it in a couple of months, but it's interesting in so far as it reveals. The influence of the green new deal right is this is a different matter. Italy's been down in the muck on this to have for years and years wrote a book about it back in. Was it two thousand seven you know has been beating this drove his whole career and notes and cares about the policy. So he actually doesn't say this is a green new deal policy. He says he calls it his climate mission, and this is something that he and his team have been working on for
a long time sort of like if anything, the green new deal. People are catching up with him, rather than vice versa. I think is quite how he would like to know is how he would like to put it so his I mean his for one thing is going to come out and like five separate five separate policy releases, this first batch is just a few. You know a few select sectors he's got, you know, he's got a whole piece on investment, coming a piece on climate justice coming a piece on the hard to reach sectors like the industry and what to do about existing buildings all that still to come. The pc released just about new buildings in new cars and electricity, but what I think is heartening about ITALY and the excitement of the Greek new deal on the sort of mobilization of the green new deal in the sort of reach the great branding legacy like climate people been waiting in waiting and waiting for years. First, some brand
slogan or something that can capture the intense complexity of all this in something inspire. And the green new deal just does it in three words like people get it in three words with amazing, to marry that with the the policy, the attention to policy detail and the policy acumen that ITALY's bringing, I think, it's fair, to say that most people don't expect in ITALY too, to come from and in this context and end up the next president, but I really hope that he can read he's the level of policy acumen so that we're getting thoughtful, experienced policy hands working on this giant thing and that's what ITALY's policy looks like to me in so that to me is like the most heartening thing that come out of all this. So far I was thinking I wanna bet about your attacking you have noting the difference between a between Democrats in two thousand
doesn't twelve even twenty. Sixteen with regard to these policies- and I think I feel like the green new deal- is and how Democrats are talking about the green new deal, not policy and others necessarily come democratic elites, but because the party writ large it you there's been a lot of talk How, whatever happened the centralism and my argument has been that no one ever liked centralism and centralism is just the negative snoopy. Everybody has a central them. No one is a centrist, and I think that this is reflective of Democrats as particularly for sectors of the democratic base. Recognising that, like said, Prism, is not going to get them anywhere. Moving towards a middle of the road view of this particular issue or any issue your time and time again, idea that they should let Mitch Mcconnell as Lucy, the football away from our beloved the brown in this particular case. I think it that's what I keep thinking about as green new deal as sign posts. The green new deal as re conceiving of what it means to be a progressive, not Missus,
the green new deal as policy or policy concept totally, and I figured yet something crucial hearing you're getting at a larger phenomenon beyond just the green new deal, a larger phenomenon. That's going on in: U S politics which, as you say, sort of like conventional democrats have had this image in their head median voter theorem this sort of like Bell curve, where most voters are clustered there in the centre right? So if he is so, if you want more votes, you go towards, the centre is sort of, like is a truism in that way of thinking. That's where the votes are an end. I think you're right that the leadership is her seems to be the last ones to be catching onto this, but I think Democrats writ large going to realise that the nearer the other side completely abandoned the centre, and so when Democrats go there to make deals, they're just in an empty room talking to themselves, there's no one left to give them credit. There's no one left to reach,
to them or to give them any reward for doing that. It's just become an utterly pointless waste of time, and so where, at once, you had the sort single belcour of you're. Getting and of two issues is getting instead to humps that are moving away from each other's centre is, is being vacated like at which to me is fascinating, like socially fascinating, politically fastening. You have this. This political system, where you have two sides that are increasingly just utterly a unified among themselves and utterly in commensurate with the other side married with this political system, full of structures that mix action impossible, almost without bi partisanship. You know this is like This sort of Ezra whole deal affecting he's writing a book on it, but like one of those has to give one of them
those has given in your right. The green new deal is: is the climate wing of the party saying the centre has been abandoned, there's nothing there anymore. It's not a good climate solution. There are no real weakens waiting there to cooperate with us. There is no political road forward from that. There's no point at all in targeting anymore, so instead we're gonna target sufficiency wreck. You work in a target. What needs to be done to solve the problem in quit? Pleading for this sort of support from the other side that never comes which, like again fine like we ve circled around this in a million different ways in conversation- that's fine in some but then your leg. You got these two and commensurate camps at and structures of government. That don't either of them to ever really take control or pass their agenda. That cannot stand for long. Something has to be
and that's why I mean. If nothing else, I mean I want the filibuster to go. I'd like you know, part three. DC to be made states. I'd like I love to see court packing, I'd love to see gerrymandering solved, partly because I want good progressive policy, but partly also just as like a release valve for this tension Like this tinges, just building in building forever got nowhere to go. No one can do anything. No one can act in you see people especially under a tree, space more. You know, increasingly just saying screw all there's like screw. This is through these norms screw these rules like we're just absolutely out for ourselves: scrapping ray of age. We can get. You know it's dog eat dog at this point. You know you, sir. see dims moving that way too. But if both parties end up there, it's hard to see how that doesn't sort of like end in version of collapse or at once and I dont know any better than anybody else, does what the right now to avoid them,
look. It could end in a lot of different ways, but I think people forget just how much of the political structure we now take for granted came through contested periods of reform, and I mean I don't think it would be an easy period, but I'm not sure it be worse. In France, it is allowing a climate disaster to run unchecked, to just thought that that raises for me one is that support to save your trying to be committed to the value of democracy. The idea that the way american government should work is that If more people want something done than the other thing done, that's the thing that should probably happen at least in most cases I like that is a lot of applications re like the electoral college. I focused on the filibuster, but its by far is far from the only thing. No voting rights acts like million things. Might you might want to think about in that space? And I do think it's important to build that that artisan bill, that out as an agenda that emerges from principles and values and and not just kind of backwards from I wanna get this one built done, but the only thing that I just think ISM,
we intend to sit in this commissioner. The green new deal I just see it violated all the time is different actors in a political system have different roles. And people want to lure everybody's role into being all things all the time that the people in that in the world as it should be, or even as it needs to be, also need to be simultaneously. The people who are the most pragmatic, who also need to be the people crafting the policy who also need to be who also need to be, who also need to be and clever You two caters, of course of Munich Haters, all that, and I just think it's very important, particularly on something like climate change, for there to be a group of folks out there. What who are trying to demand like this is what ought to happen right like a whatever you're doing. It has to be benchmarked against what ought to happen and if what ought to happen as an happen, that is the consequences for real people are going to be disastrous. Right, like it is a moral failure for what ought to happen not to happen
and so I have quibbles with this and I think they're real questions about the underlying political strategy, and are you actually making it stronger by bolting? All these other things onto it like? I think that the best outcome can make against a green new deal as it it's too focused on one kind of person. It's too much an act of a certain kind of leftist projection like what they find mobilizing everybody will find mobilizing. My mom will find that mobilizing, I'm not sure I think I think, they're more issues without than than sometimes they do, but on the underlying climate side of it. If you really do need people setting out what the system needs to do, and then you can begin asking yourself like is the system capable of doing it? And if the system is not capable of doing it, then he could be got began, asking yourself like what does that say about the system, but if the truth of the matter, it is right that it I'll give just one example. Here it is world were one and the run up to world where one the leads to Woodrow Wilson, forcing the Senate to adopt the closure. Will for the filibuster at all before then, you couldn't stop a filibuster, no matter
many votes you had, but there was a filibuster around a preliminary policy to toward were one and with Wilson couldn't break it and in a special session of the Senate he demanded and received, from them of rule that allowed to third super majority of senators to break the filibuster, because our certain things in american politics in life that we are not willing as a country to not be able to do, for instance, when their support for it fight or protect ourselves in a war and either climate like has a similar quality. If it is a case that our political system cannot deal with climate change, then like the problem is not that he activists are being unreasonable. The problem is the political system, and if I want to see more of an agenda on the
legal system like that. Doesn't that doesn't take away from the force of that indictment yeah in, and I want to say in these sort of defence of the of these activists, you know like the favourite indoor sport of dc political people is to crap on left activists. It's it's the right love to do at the sinner loves to do it. Even the left cannot loves to do it and in these poor you know, green new deal activists have have had to show everybody's complaint from every different direction, but it's worth noting that they are in a very, very tricky position because saying, as you said, here's what needs to happen. It's very easy given scale of what needs to happen for you to sort of just to find yourself right out of the conversation right just to find yourself so far out that you that that you ve
Nobody on the inside, listening to you anymore, right, the distance between the needs to happen. What possible can be so great that it's easy to just you know like you, could end up like the extinction rebellion in the UK whose now decided that their demand and I'm not kidding- is that the? U K, one hundred percent de carbonized by twenty twenty five which which would basically mean turning off the Uk Luck, just shut down and third, the I can turn the machines off. That's like that's like I mean I don't know like I'm, not a political scientist, but that it, I can't imagine that, does lake got no one outside of their club hoof That's even remotely reasonable. So at this point like what are they doing, and I think that the green new deal activists have to add HANS, be a moral voice, a clear moral voice and be proud,
matic enough in offer enough carrots, alongside the sticks, that they actually give the establishment Democrats some concrete incentive to move in their direction and their short of having to handle all that and its in its not cool, how best to do that, and it's not clear, like you know once again like this, like it a room full of like twenty seven year olds in the world. Has urged them with with raw Lucian, raising american politics and completely transforming the american economy and saving the friggin world in there just like operating by the sea to their pants, like the rest of us, like you know, be nice if, like the rest of the democratic stabbing like stepped up and helped a little bit and that's what frustrate me about the response the green new deal when it first came out. Is everybody's knee jerk responses, just all those kooky lefties again, but I like
The way you make the imperative of climate change feel urgent to people is that you just act as though its urgent. Let what Democrats don't get they read pub opinion polls in their like, oh the public's, not there yet well, they are king to you like you. They are following elite cues like if you think climate is urgent act like it talk like it and if an if a grass roots movement Behind climate action comes in parks itself, literally on your friggin doorstep, use it like that, should be a blessing to you and should be a blessing your grandchildren who you're worried about right, I mean like a grassroots energy- is not you kid. conjured up out and nothing? It's not fungible. You can't return it and say. Please give me a movement that more exactly aligned with my policy preferences like grassroots energy is a precious thing in here like presented itself to the democratic establishment and all they could
got to do was say all this is unrealistic, right leg, its unrealistic politics is just perception, its there's, no its arm it all mush, it's all cloud. It's all perception in this thing becomes, either. This thing is a crazy lefty, unrealistic thing, or absolutely a moral imperative that we have to rearrange politics to achieve whether it's one of those two things just depends on which one you treat it as how you act and demographic just said absolutely right. This is a moral imperative. Thank you for clarifying this, we are going to make this our common. You know benchmark. Then, then, all sudden. It's not unrealistic anymore. All of a sudden it mainstream democratic policy, racket like, but instead they just everybody, just retreated to their familiar corners. You know, and it's like no one, that's what the leg is frustrating is no one seems to be acting though we are genuinely in a very
time limited in very extreme crisis in maybe it's time to like rethink some of your old you know a fallacious and and and and and police, like maybe it's time to think I knew about this. Maybe it's time to do something different than just this old game of centre. Verses left is just so tedious. I think, though, that the yet we keep getting back to this, this conflict between the urgency and the magnetism, and for some reason this keeps you, I think it's challenging when you have activists that are to the left of the establishment and the idea of urgency as itself being a call for action, and I think that that is challenging for Democrats, establishment, because I think that you are generally deal with conservative movements, kind of and conservative talking about issues- they think deeply urgent and currently you, if you're still a deficit, HAWK welcome. It must have been a difficult, a couple of years for you, but you are hearing from republican trafficking that, like the deficit
is an issue. This is a giant giant problem. We need to deal with that urgently, and then you hear people responding to them like what exactly do you mean by urgent, because things seem fine now that debt is good, everything is going to work out. Ok rising translating that even the idea of urgency into what do you mean by urgent and urgently do what and how to do that in Europe, with a democratic, big, Tent. That is larger than it actually has ever been, and I think that that's for the best, but I think occasionally, when you get within, can activists circles, the tent gets smaller, because I think being able to make the case within the Democratic Party is important, but also explaining how One can be both pragmatic and urgent, and would even urgency means in this context is important to do you. I think I mean one thing. I've been waiting, and I'm hoping it's finally beginning to Happen- is just the sort of conventional Democrats have view this as a quote, unquote: environmental issue
for years and years decades, and they just left the environmental movement and most of them just our not fluent in it, and really get it on on a gut level which which, which has a bunch of affects one, is when there asked to speak on it like Elizabeth WAR and God bless her. I love I'm a huge Elizabeth, worn, faint love all her plans. I love her policy literacy, but it makes it a glaring when she turns to climate change and just sounds like she is reading a bunch of sound bites that she got from consultants right I believe in the science, like you know, when you asked someone we want to do about poor health care. What do they do? They say I believe that illness exists. I absolutely Billy that diseases real like. No. If you, diseases really don't go talking about this house real? You talk about what the hell to do about it like so, and I don't think they get also that that this is not like health care in that
it kin stumble along in a crappy system, more less indefinitely, and eventually you can get to fixing it, but like the fixed will be just as good, then as it will be now right like you're, not there's nothing, irredeemable, there's nothing is being lost. Is what can be regained policy wise, but with good, but with climate literally every day, this passing we're seeing irreversible change. As these are not this. Is not something you can come back to next time, and I just if, if Democrats would be more just fluent in talking about it in those turned and quit talking about in these artificial sounding solvent, sounding sound bite, sounding fake inauthentic sounding language. I think that alone would make a huge difference if they genuinely would read David Wallace Wells Book, the unaware biddable earth and let it freak them out, like it freaked me out and then take that sense of being freaked out back to politics
talk about it as though you are really freaked out like that's what people need to hear that you convey it. I mean the IPCC has given us all this information, but it's got to it's got to be made dividend in. This is where I think AOC and her crew are doing a great job like they made a video. I don't know if you guys saw this. I got like a ten to twelve minute video. animated video of just eo- see talking about not just the sort of danger, but the opportunities of creating clean, green society, and you know you got to sleep visual rules of this house, rail, these beautiful climate, Nina visit solar panels in just making the whole thing much more real cause, it just sounds like a like a capital. I issue to people, people who care about issues right. They care about life, they care about their lives, they care about their circumstances, and this needs to be made real to people so
I think we are witnessing the sort of stumbling awkward, sometimes cringe worthy process, whereby democratic politicians really begin to pay attention to this in earnest in a way they haven't in a long time and slow We go through that process that everyone goes through when they really start paying attention to this closely witches holy Shit, who hook wait what corrected like? That's? Why I'm here, like who're, you know, are or like Pelosi or what are you sort of like a crusty old democratic leaders? I want one of them to get up in front of a crowd and see wholly crap. If you can, Ruth abyss. Do you guys know what really going on like is genuinely shocking when you find out- and I just don't see that genuine sentiment hardly anywhere in evidence. Even among Democrats, I've got a good place to bring this to a close, a day
for joining us for much overdue renewal episode and will not be our last Jane is always thinking you out in the weeds universe for being here with us. We today in a couple of days. If their friends and family members you have to talk to an awhile, don't worry it's never too late to reconnect to help anti is offering deals in the latest smartphones it's complicated everyone deserves something new, so eighteen is giving new and existing customers their best deals on every smartphone, even the latest ones. Since that exemptions apply visit. Eighty Tita com for details accessible, affordable broadband helps communities
stored. Their american dream for students. Lectures on Chavez means rising above the poverty line becoming valedictorian of international high school at Langley Park, and thanks to access from eighty anti can help these dreams turning turn into reality. That's my eighteen tease me two billion dollar three year, commitment to help close the digital divide to more Americans, have a chance to succeed. To learn more http dot com, slash connecting communities.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-11.