politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Are you saying the green new deal will be a bad idea and unpopular or triggering a depression to get it would be unpopular and a bad idea? Because the former I'd say is necessary to stop and help heal both climate change and income inequality, and if it's anything like the first new deal would bring the party into power for a generation and set a new economic consensus. I think the latter is a bit extreme to accomplish it but idk any other way to get people to completely turn away from the current system and it'll just be boiling the frog as the planet gets hotter, the rich get richer and the parties lose popularity but retain power.
No, I'm saying that crashing the economy on purpose will result in the party which does it being incredibly unpopular. You can't do that and expect people to even listen to your next idea.
I studied environmental politics and climate change in grad school. When the global economy went into meltdown in 07/08, a lot of us in academia mused that maybe the great breakdown of existing power structures would free up cognitive space to try to reimagine a better, more sustainable path forward. During our conferences there were a few cynics who repeatedly pointed out that when bills are hard to pay, and when opportunity is scarce, and when systems are stressed, people respond by being less innovative and flexible, not more. When shit hit the fan, it turned out, the cynics were absolutely right:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2009/04/11/environmental-impact-of-financial-crisis-challenges-and-opportunities-event-1328
https://landscapepartnership.org/maps-data/climate-context/cc-resources/ClimateSciPDFs/EmissionsRecessionsnclimate.pdf/app-download-file/file/EmissionsRecessionsnclimate.pdf
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/08/06/lets-not-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did-after-the-2008-crisis/
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/12/jones.htm
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/49910
When times get tough, programs like the Green New Deal get shredded and forgotten, because putting food on the table takes immediate precedence over longer-term visions for a different future. If you want to blow a gigantic hole in every environmental initiative that's generated a modicum of attention over the past few decades and hasten the demise of the clean energy sector in favor of fossil fuel-based industries, then by all means cheer for the collapse of the economy. It's just about the most surefire thing you could possibly imagine if you're interested in seeing the Green New Deal relegated to the dustbin of history.
I agree that initially people respond to crisis with conservatism and leaning on the current system, but that conservatism runs out though. If the system is able to solve the crisis, or at least show progress in solving it then it can be re-entrenched. If it can't and proves utterly incapable of solving it, or even perpetuating it then people start to get radical. In 1929 and 1930 many people still believed laissez-faire could fix the depression but as conditions stayed the same or worsened people started to realize it's flaws. By 1932 they were ready to give up on it and try anything to end it. 2007 was different as the neo liberal system was able to muster a response to the problem of speculative financial collapse in the form of financial bail outs which did bottom out the recession and start an upward trend.
The crisis I'd "root for", as much as I can root for something that'd cause immediate suffering to many people, is one that neo liberalism can't handle and therefore discredits it as a governing system. That crisis will come eventually, just as the depression ended laissez-faire and stagflation ended keynesianism and if that pattern holds up we'll probably see a swing to the left this time on this metronome of economic consensus.
It's amazing to me that people can make proclamations like this with absolute certainty and yet have absolutely no evidence to support them. Your hypothetical is just as likely to lead to a fascist dystopia as it is to lead to a leftist utopia. If your pattern doesn't "hold up", we all die. Whose life are you gambling with, exactly?
I am not gambling anyone's life. I have almost no power and can't do anything to create or delay a crisis. The best I will do with my limited power is try and make it so the organization on the ground is ready to attempt that leftward shift if/when the crisis comes.
It could end in a fascist dystopia, but I think that's less likely. At least in the u.s. where fascism never took off in its heyday before it had any stigma. If your talking about something with no evidence then that fascist speculation would be something, at least there's precedent for a Keynesian new deal in the U.S. I do recognize it as a possibility though and that's why I said probably, not with "absolute certainty".
If the crisis doesn't happen we may all die as well as neither party seems willing to deal with the climate catastrophe. That outcome seems way more certain to me, as shown by the repeated calls for action in the last 2 decades falling in deaf ears, than fascists taking over if a crisis does happen.
The way I see it is there's a 90% chance of severe climate catastrophe on the current course, and a 30% chance there will be a fascist takeover if there's a crisis, but a 50% chance for a green new deal. These are all completely speculative, but so is any guess on the future and I like to believe my guess has some backing in historical reality.