The base mistake of the Yglesias types is that climate/environment issues are open doors that we could walk through if we only listened to them. In fact the doors are blocked by people with piles of money and influence
The Yglesias continue to believe that climate/environment is an open door all could walk thru if we only listened to them, ignoring the plucky band of billionaires slamming it shut
I think Yglesias made a good point that the Dems have sufficient "elite capture" regarding climate. And I wish he emphasized the point that states with Dem trifectas pass lots of climate-related policy, so it's not just one of those "sloganeer during campaigns and then ignore it" issues.
In general this is how policy areas that aren't electorally weighty gets hashed out? Like anti-trust competition isn't a huge salient issue to typical voters, politicians rarely run on meaty anti-trust policy, but it's clearly possible to spread the gospel among Dem elites without holding a "BIDEN YOU COWARD" sign.
Which leads me to... I think the "performance" aspect to Sunrise Movement that offends Yglesias is a valid point. Like, at the Sierra Club, I assume you discussed strategies in how to broaden your appeal? Republicans don't care about climate change but a lot of their voters care about clean air, water, accessible public lands, etc. But the Sunrise Movement tries to take the far left wing position on almost every political issue! What is served by doing that? Not climate!
I understand they're speaking to an important issue, essentially the most fundamental issue of our time. But there's a responsibility to "do winning politics" then! And I think Yglesias has a point that this isn't winning politics.
It's likely his tone was overly grumpy and it's tempting to say "they're doing SOMETHING and this issue is too important to nitpick advocacy methods."
But I'd argue the opposite. It's mostly forgotten now, but remember this?
And look man, this all sucks. Admonishments to do 'winning politics' is often just people making excuses because they really want to do nothing. But I don't think much is served to just defend all 'bad politics' even if they're well intended.
-I'm very worried that Dems don't have sufficient "elite capture." Dem elites are now willing to talk about how climate is an existential threat. They are saying that more frequently than they did in 2009. But I'm not sure how committed they are to it. Yes, it's more than sloganeering. But the current fight is over what elements of the infrastructure bill are core priority must-haves and what elements are nice proposals but ultimately can be sacrificed.
I don't know how one measures "elite capture," but it seems like a reasonable proxy is "do they abandon this priority in favor of other priorities?"
-I don't think this is how policy areas that aren't *electorally weighty* get hashed out. It's how policy areas that don't have a *strong partisan valence* get hashed out. And climate has an extremely strong partisan valence. Anti-trust, particularly for Big Tech right now, doesn't have a strong partisan valence. That's a huge difference. You can get plenty of Republican cosponsors to line up behind anti-trust bills.
-One of my first Sierra Club memories was seeing images of the "21 chainsaw salute" that our President and other environmental leaders gave to Bill Clinton after he compromised on environmental issues in a budget recision package. Performative activist tactics certainly ain't new.
-I agree that there has to be room for strategic critique, and that "doing winning politics" is important. But I think it's also essential to acknowledge that the model of doing winning politics that Matt is advancing *does not work when you have a ticking click*. It's a model that will not win!
-But yeah, overall, this all just sucks. The standard do-winning-politics ideas won't work. The more aggressive ideas probably won't work either. A functional time machine is basically the best option I can think of.
>But yeah, overall, this all just sucks. The standard do-winning-politics ideas won't work. The more aggressive ideas probably won't work either. A functional time machine is basically the best option I can think of.
I think this is at the root of the Yglesias-vs-Everyone beef.
If you think climate is an important-but-not-existential issue, like say healthcare or immigration, then "do winning politics" is good advice and the Sunrise Movement seems indulgent, similar to the "Force the Vote" nonsense earlier this year (if you don't know what I'm talking about).
If you think climate is literally existential, then writing up a whole criticism that the Sunrise Movement sucks, seems like an incredibly stupid counterproductive effort by someone who seemingly cares about the issue.
And therein lies the paradox, right? If it's existential, then all the more reason it's critical not to fuck it up with stupid performative politics. But if it's existential... who the fuck cares about critiquing performative politics!? Not sure if you agree, but this probably explains why we're both coming at Yglesias from opposite directions and yet... all I can do is share your resignation for a functional time machine.
Speaking of, I often think about the 2000 election. There have been countless projections on an alternate history of a Gore presidency, but something I think is rarely mentioned is that Gore would've likely driven the kind of incrementalism on climate policy that is wholly insufficient now, but would've been "good and effective" politics then.
P.S. I've enjoyed following you on Twitter and hope you write more in your Substack!
P.P.S. As an side, I think Republicans talking about anti-trust are still full of shit. Easy to imagine in the next year, some court case strikes down some FTC regulatory effort on a statutory interpretation, that could be easily fixed by amending the statue... and there will be 0 GOP votes interested in doing that. The GOP's interest in tech industry anti-trust, is purely just an effort to handcuff mainstream social media companies to give them an unfettered access to post shit like holocaust memes, because an audience of normies is desperately needed for that act.
The base mistake of the Yglesias types is that climate/environment issues are open doors that we could walk through if we only listened to them. In fact the doors are blocked by people with piles of money and influence
The Yglesias continue to believe that climate/environment is an open door all could walk thru if we only listened to them, ignoring the plucky band of billionaires slamming it shut
Sorry I didn't read this when you wrote it; but it's very well put. The climate movement still needs you.
I think Yglesias made a good point that the Dems have sufficient "elite capture" regarding climate. And I wish he emphasized the point that states with Dem trifectas pass lots of climate-related policy, so it's not just one of those "sloganeer during campaigns and then ignore it" issues.
In general this is how policy areas that aren't electorally weighty gets hashed out? Like anti-trust competition isn't a huge salient issue to typical voters, politicians rarely run on meaty anti-trust policy, but it's clearly possible to spread the gospel among Dem elites without holding a "BIDEN YOU COWARD" sign.
Which leads me to... I think the "performance" aspect to Sunrise Movement that offends Yglesias is a valid point. Like, at the Sierra Club, I assume you discussed strategies in how to broaden your appeal? Republicans don't care about climate change but a lot of their voters care about clean air, water, accessible public lands, etc. But the Sunrise Movement tries to take the far left wing position on almost every political issue! What is served by doing that? Not climate!
I understand they're speaking to an important issue, essentially the most fundamental issue of our time. But there's a responsibility to "do winning politics" then! And I think Yglesias has a point that this isn't winning politics.
It's likely his tone was overly grumpy and it's tempting to say "they're doing SOMETHING and this issue is too important to nitpick advocacy methods."
But I'd argue the opposite. It's mostly forgotten now, but remember this?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/11/18220163/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-faq-tucker-carlson
And look man, this all sucks. Admonishments to do 'winning politics' is often just people making excuses because they really want to do nothing. But I don't think much is served to just defend all 'bad politics' even if they're well intended.
Partially agree, partially disagree:
-I'm very worried that Dems don't have sufficient "elite capture." Dem elites are now willing to talk about how climate is an existential threat. They are saying that more frequently than they did in 2009. But I'm not sure how committed they are to it. Yes, it's more than sloganeering. But the current fight is over what elements of the infrastructure bill are core priority must-haves and what elements are nice proposals but ultimately can be sacrificed.
I don't know how one measures "elite capture," but it seems like a reasonable proxy is "do they abandon this priority in favor of other priorities?"
-I don't think this is how policy areas that aren't *electorally weighty* get hashed out. It's how policy areas that don't have a *strong partisan valence* get hashed out. And climate has an extremely strong partisan valence. Anti-trust, particularly for Big Tech right now, doesn't have a strong partisan valence. That's a huge difference. You can get plenty of Republican cosponsors to line up behind anti-trust bills.
-One of my first Sierra Club memories was seeing images of the "21 chainsaw salute" that our President and other environmental leaders gave to Bill Clinton after he compromised on environmental issues in a budget recision package. Performative activist tactics certainly ain't new.
-I agree that there has to be room for strategic critique, and that "doing winning politics" is important. But I think it's also essential to acknowledge that the model of doing winning politics that Matt is advancing *does not work when you have a ticking click*. It's a model that will not win!
-But yeah, overall, this all just sucks. The standard do-winning-politics ideas won't work. The more aggressive ideas probably won't work either. A functional time machine is basically the best option I can think of.
>But yeah, overall, this all just sucks. The standard do-winning-politics ideas won't work. The more aggressive ideas probably won't work either. A functional time machine is basically the best option I can think of.
I think this is at the root of the Yglesias-vs-Everyone beef.
If you think climate is an important-but-not-existential issue, like say healthcare or immigration, then "do winning politics" is good advice and the Sunrise Movement seems indulgent, similar to the "Force the Vote" nonsense earlier this year (if you don't know what I'm talking about).
If you think climate is literally existential, then writing up a whole criticism that the Sunrise Movement sucks, seems like an incredibly stupid counterproductive effort by someone who seemingly cares about the issue.
And therein lies the paradox, right? If it's existential, then all the more reason it's critical not to fuck it up with stupid performative politics. But if it's existential... who the fuck cares about critiquing performative politics!? Not sure if you agree, but this probably explains why we're both coming at Yglesias from opposite directions and yet... all I can do is share your resignation for a functional time machine.
Speaking of, I often think about the 2000 election. There have been countless projections on an alternate history of a Gore presidency, but something I think is rarely mentioned is that Gore would've likely driven the kind of incrementalism on climate policy that is wholly insufficient now, but would've been "good and effective" politics then.
P.S. I've enjoyed following you on Twitter and hope you write more in your Substack!
P.P.S. As an side, I think Republicans talking about anti-trust are still full of shit. Easy to imagine in the next year, some court case strikes down some FTC regulatory effort on a statutory interpretation, that could be easily fixed by amending the statue... and there will be 0 GOP votes interested in doing that. The GOP's interest in tech industry anti-trust, is purely just an effort to handcuff mainstream social media companies to give them an unfettered access to post shit like holocaust memes, because an audience of normies is desperately needed for that act.
Hmm, your comment is cutting off for me after "and."