Okay, I’ll admit my analogy was a bit flawed. (Oh the joys of staying up much too late and arguing online) Here’s a better one:
One is driving off the edge while holding down the acceleration, screaming about how he wants to go faster.
The other is holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas.
If you had to try and convince one of them to stop, or if you wanted to buy yourself the most time before going off the edge, which would you pick?
I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.
But this guy:
holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas
Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he’s wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he’s among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.
The answer to “which would you rather convince” is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn’t done it in a generation, why would he do it now?
It’s also getting harder to justify the “accelerating less” part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.
I get that. The problem for me is that this is a systemic issue, and it’s something that’s going to happen whether or not you as an individual participate, but it will impact your ability as an individual to fight for change.
We have a two-party duopoly. We have two bad choices. One is worse than the other, but neither will save us outright.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power. If you want to, say, fund more social programs, you’re going to watch Democrats possibly let you implement it, while Republicans will actively strip away what already exists the same day they get into office, then bar any new progress for the length of their term.
If you want to implement a system like ranked choice voting, you don’t want a wannabe dictator in power, because he’s obviously not going to make that as easy for you.
I don’t think the Democrats will actually save us in any way, nor do I think they’re currently pushing us in a very good direction overall, but the last thing I want is to increase the chance of someone like Trump staying in office by acting as though the Democrats are exactly equal, because all that will do is make any movement against right-wing policy extraordinarily difficult.
If I want to give myself the best odds of making a change, I want the people most sympathetic, even if only a little more than the alternative, to my cause, and right now, that’s the Democratic party, as unfortunate and depressing as that may be.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power.
I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.
But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we’ve had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They’ve failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you’re suggesting and it hasn’t worked.
We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn’t help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can’t afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015581092/biden-promised-to-end-new-drilling-on-federal-land-but-approvals-are-up
That’s what you’re calling a brake
Okay, I’ll admit my analogy was a bit flawed. (Oh the joys of staying up much too late and arguing online) Here’s a better one:
One is driving off the edge while holding down the acceleration, screaming about how he wants to go faster. The other is holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas.
If you had to try and convince one of them to stop, or if you wanted to buy yourself the most time before going off the edge, which would you pick?
I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.
But this guy:
Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he’s wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he’s among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.
The answer to “which would you rather convince” is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn’t done it in a generation, why would he do it now?
It’s also getting harder to justify the “accelerating less” part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.
I get that. The problem for me is that this is a systemic issue, and it’s something that’s going to happen whether or not you as an individual participate, but it will impact your ability as an individual to fight for change.
We have a two-party duopoly. We have two bad choices. One is worse than the other, but neither will save us outright.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power. If you want to, say, fund more social programs, you’re going to watch Democrats possibly let you implement it, while Republicans will actively strip away what already exists the same day they get into office, then bar any new progress for the length of their term.
If you want to implement a system like ranked choice voting, you don’t want a wannabe dictator in power, because he’s obviously not going to make that as easy for you.
I don’t think the Democrats will actually save us in any way, nor do I think they’re currently pushing us in a very good direction overall, but the last thing I want is to increase the chance of someone like Trump staying in office by acting as though the Democrats are exactly equal, because all that will do is make any movement against right-wing policy extraordinarily difficult.
If I want to give myself the best odds of making a change, I want the people most sympathetic, even if only a little more than the alternative, to my cause, and right now, that’s the Democratic party, as unfortunate and depressing as that may be.
I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.
But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we’ve had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They’ve failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you’re suggesting and it hasn’t worked.
We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn’t help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can’t afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.
Genocide bad? Oh my god talk about a lack of nuance 🤓