STEVE HILTON, FOX NEWS: You've got people who will see that offer from the Democrats, from the progressive Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Here's the Green New Deal, here's the guarantee of a job,' and think, 'yeah, that's what I want, it's that simple.' What do you say to those people?Ivanka Trump was largely blasted throughout the media as an out-of-touch privileged hypocrite who has had everything handed to her. This underscores a commonly held view by those on the Left that see the conservative 'work-for-what-you-get' sentiment as a fundamental manipulation that the elite use on the blue-collar worker to maintain their wealth.
IVANKA TRUMP: I don't think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something.
I've spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get. So, I think that this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job.
They want the ability to live in a country where there's the potential for upward mobility.
The common worker is, on the one hand, compassionately regarded by the 'left' as a victim of capitalism, and on the other callously portrayed as a simple-minded redneck whose unlimited gullibility leads him to believe that one day he too might be 'one of them mighty fine rich folk'. Perhaps there might be something to this, but perhaps that is not all there is. There is something about this 'work for what you get' mentality that is deeply rooted within the American mindset, and exploring AOC's proposal within this context might help explain the strong response to it.
Initial reactions to the 'Green New Deal' from both the Left and Right - within the population generally and politicians particularly - has involved mostly ridicule, exasperation, scorn and dramatic condemnation (complete with hamburgers). At least one of the reasons for this was the fact that a summary of the GND (that has since been deleted from AOC's website after it was widely mocked on social media) called for economic security for everyone (even those "unwilling to work") and said air travel should be eliminated along with "farting cows." These depictions are, of course, not representative of the whole resolution, and it's possible that the outrageous summary was the work of a 'saboteur' or written up by an ideologically possessed devotee. But even after the full 'official' text was released, the response was, let's say, underwhelming, and while the proposal has its steadfast supporters (primarily among those who sponsored it), it seems that the vast majority of Americans are against it, and for good reason.
While the text does detail a few theoretically good ideas, like supporting family farms, clean water, respecting indigenous lands and treaties and reducing fossil fuel consumption to mitigate the health hazards from environmental pollution, the fine print contains all manner of objectively implausible, unrealistic or unnecessary ideas that tarnish the entire document. Basically, any 'good' is vastly outweighed by the very much ideologically-driven bad ideas. Some examples include the creation of high-speed railways, updating every building in the US within 10 years to meet new 'green' energy standards, ensuring that 100% of power comes from zero-emission energy sources, and so on. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that, underpinning the proposal is the creation of a new economy through massive government expansion.
Ideology
The document's proposals for revamping infrastructure and manufacturing, creating jobs and rolling out new transportation networks are clearly based on 'green solutions' that are fueled by identity politics. The proposal draws on the urgency of global disaster via man-made climate change to attract supporters, and bizarrely claims that climate change has "exacerbated systemic racial injustices". Ocasio-Cortez herself has stated that "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change".
If it were to become law, the GND would usher a dramatic expansion of an already massive welfare state using 'vulnerable populations' as a means of increasing centralized power and control. This is another underlying theme in the deal. Under the GND, all new jobs, project work, contractual work, etc. would be prioritized for the "disenfranchised" i.e. persons of color, minorities, women, homosexuals, etc. In this way, the GND favors divisive group identity designations over competence.
In a time when people on the Right are being depicted as subhuman and lacking any intelligence or humanity, it's not difficult to imagine that broad-scale and selective social changes like the GND could make an already bad situation in the USA worse. Imposing a country-wide and radically new system onto a society in a very short period of time generally does not work (unless you're starting from scratch... or looking to collapse a system). One of the greater evils of the anglo-Saxon world in the modern era has been to push the 'Western way' onto foreign nations that have their own history of development, functionality, and symbiosis. We've seen what happens as a result (think Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.). Some may see it as 'karma' that such a policy would eventually be forced on 'the home nation', but that doesn't stop it from being a very bad idea, especially given the current political climate in the USA.
Practicality
Question: how do you make every building (business and residential properties) in America 'green'? Answer: with vast amounts of money, taxpayer's money. Question: how exactly will forcing all existing buildings to 'go green' create jobs when the new 'green industry' will obviously supplant existing industries? The authors of the GND claim that it will create jobs with benefits such as paid leave, paid vacations and retirement security, yet they also claim that, under the GND, it will be necessary to provide targeted programs for state-funded housing, health care and food. How productive will these guaranteed jobs really be when the government will have to provide hand-outs that the supposed new jobs should pay for? It's something of an axiom that the US government is extremely fiscally inefficient, particularly in the way it employs far too many people (currently about 2 million civilian workers). How much more inefficient would government become under the GND, which requires the creation of 13 million new government jobs for the 4% of Americans who are unemployed? An industrious and hard work ethic has long been a part of the 'American way'. Many Americans regard this as fundamental to the American spirit. The Green New Deal seems to want to crush this.
High-speed rail in the United States
Most Americans want to see better roads, better bridges and better infrastructure in general. But that's not what the GND promises. California is proof that America is nowhere near ready to implement a high-speed rail network on a country-wide scale. The sunshine state recently gave up trying to create its own high-speed rail network, with the governor (who is a fully paid-up believer in the Globalist Green Agenda) stating that the program is out of control with costs ballooning to $77 billion. A scaled-down version of the project envisions finishing a line that is 171 miles long linking just the Bay Area. And the estimated date of completion? 2027.
High-speed train networks just don't make sense given the country's geography and distribution of population density, among other factors. Hardly anyone uses the railways for travel and everything is structured around air or car travel. Americans do love their cars, but there is also a practical issue here regarding how towns, cities, etc. were laid out many decades ago.
The people behind the GND want to expand this program throughout the country and use the state to essentially ban the use of cars for travel. Whatever happened to the much-touted 'land of liberty'?
Conclusion
One study found that the cost for the GND will be somewhere in the range of $94.4 trillion, or over $600,000 per household. From the study:
"The American Action Forum calculated guaranteed green housing would cost between $1.6 trillion and $4.2 trillion; a federal jobs guarantee between $6.8 trillion and $44.6 trillion; a net zero emissions transportation system between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion; a low-carbon electricity grid for $5.4 trillion; and "food security" for $1.5 billion."Put simply, the GND is an ideologically-driven scheme hatched by a bunch of virtue-signaling pseudo-intellectuals who have no idea how the country actually functions.
Enough high-speed rail "to make air travel unnecessary," would cost roughly $1.1 to $2.5 trillion. Universal Health Care, or a Medicare-for-all type plan, would cost $36 trillion over 10 years, totaling $260,000 per household in the United States."
That there is such a strong reaction from Americans to this proposed overhaul of the 'American way of life' is just one reason why the GND should be panned. It's not like we're talking about any real solutions to real problems here. When a government overrules the majority view on issues that directly relate to their private lives, it's always a bad idea. Americans have their particular way of doing things, just like any other nation, and nothing good can come from the radical reshaping of existing social norms in an effort to steer an entire population in a direction it apparently does not want to go.
Yes, Americans are already steered and controlled - again, just as any other people - but the fundamental human psychological need for the stability of social structures remains the same across the board. Injecting instability into an already hystericized population is madness.
This resolution seeks to give the government vastly increased power to interfere in the private lives of its citizens. For a majority of Americans, the government is already too big, and interferes too much in their lives. That is the number one problem that so many Americans have with this resolution. People reject it because they already know the essence of what it would entail if implemented. At best it would tax the hell out of its citizens in order to pay for initiatives that have no guarantee of making life better for anyone, or cutting pollution (quite the opposite). At worst it would ignite unprecedented global conflict as the US government would be forced to engage in new aggressive wars of foreign intervention to secure access to the raw materials required to 'green the entire economy'.
Improve US infrastructure? We're all for it. But creating an even bigger government that will have greater control over the private lives of its citizens while presenting them with a worse deal is not what we want, and if that means not being 'number one' in modernity and 'progressiveness', then so be it.
Reader Comments
Self-hating, smart-stupid, highly motivated hipsters with too much energy and a leader clearly off his rocker.
I know that when news outlets feature articles about their political opponents, the editors will as a rule choose unflattering pictures of whoever is in the spotlight, so I know it's totally unfair to base opinions on those sorts of images. But when they do it to AOC.., it always makes me laugh out loud.
Her face is tragically well suited to expressing fevered madness.
Do you honestly believe AOC really cares for the nature (that get's destroyed by the greed of those who finance both dems and reps) ?
And just to make one more point that is often overlooked but shows how insane these people are: how do you "save energy" by starting the biggest, most massive (re-)construction project in history? Think about it! Do the math! And please include every machine needed, every crane and every drill, and every truck driving around, and any piece of aluminum produced in some energy-sink of a factory.
In Germany, they did the same thing and forced people to "isolate" their houses so that perhaps a little less heating is needed. With massive energy being wasted on these isolating projects! But then, turns out the climate in many houses got so bad that people just leave their windows open and the whole "isolation" thing is for naught. So what do the liberal fascists do? Where they can get away with it, they build houses where you can't open the windows!
You have been warned!
Whether a government should legally require the refit of private and commercial buildings for energy efficiency is another and different issue. It has been encouraged and subsidized with tax credits in many places in the U.S.
Reconstruction, repair, and all sorts of upgrades go on all the time - for obvious reasons. It's an investment that improves things now and pays off in the future. Of course most of what we do requires the use of materials and energy of all kinds. The point is calculating the costs and requirements of any plan intended to result in less fossil fuel usage and pollution in the future.
You need more detail and data to support your rant.
Those "energy saving requirements", as well as the massively advertized solar arrays sold to private households and municipalities, are a blessing for banking system and the lobbying industry only. Or think of the tax-funded car deal a few years ago. These actions serve the sole purpose of flush money into the coffers of "lobbying" industries, and fleece the rich sheeple.
When hearing/reading "lobbyism", think "faschism". According to Mussolini, fascism is the merger between state and corporate powers, better termed "corporatism". What else is the EU / Merkel regime ???
She's quiet about Venezuela.
Just like Trump, she is playing that idiot role for the left. meanwhile you barely cover Tulsi Gabbard... Just like fox news you repeat the bs drama.
Two recent ones:
Best of the Web: True conservative: Tucker Carlson shreds RussiaHoax, says Venezuela regime change betrays MAGA, interviews Tulsi Gabbard
Tucker Carlson of FoxNews has been putting out great stuff for the last couple of years, becoming more and more populist. We'll keeping you posted when we see something worthwhile. It's been...Best of the Web: Tulsi Gabbard: Trump-Kim summit failure no surprise as only nukes deter US regime change in N. Korea
Tulsi Gabbard says that while she is upset by the lack of progress at the talks in Vietnam, North Korea has every reason to believe its nukes are the only deterrent against regime change, taking...@Dus7:
'Every idea to improve human life and improve the health of the earth should be considered...'
That is your quote? That is YOUR POSITION?!?!?!?!?!?!? Every 'idea'????
Let us be FAIR, eh????
I think perhaps our current collective human 'idea' (which is: TECHNOPOLY, ie., the overuse and the OVER-DEPENDENCE on technology, the complete and total monopoly created by the hard-core pathological technophile addicts, to the detriment AND RUIN of all else) could be POSSIBLY abandoned. It has run its course, MAYBE?. Y'all think? Perhaps (just perhaps) it could be WISE to give it up. All it (TECHNOPOLY) is doing is creating a vast and ever-growing imbalance of wealth and power and an all-consuming, all-destroying war and a entrenched 'leadership' of psychopaths, that cannot be removed or altered, EXCEPT THROUGH TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF EARTH.
AOC is just one example (of the psychotic technophile, control addict. There are SO MANY.
Just another thought by another total FUCKING idiot such as yourself, of course. My name is nedlud.
'O, travellers of the human imagination: I fear you shall not reach Mecca (paradise), for THIS IS THE ROAD TO TURKESTAN (hell).'
FUCKING DUH.
FUCKING DUH.
FUCKING DUH.
signed,
nedlud, JUST ANOTHER FUCKING IDIOT, out
Gee. whiz, willikers.....
I must have lost my fucking mind.
So sorry, everyone.
NOT.
ned,
OUT
Your rant is unintelligible. Ad homs are not helpful - or mature.
"Green" energies and electric automobiles simply hide all of the pollution and waste from the consumers direct attention... during mining, manufacturing, use of distant polluting power-source, and end of life disposal of the equipment. They only serve to make yuppies feel good about themselves.
Solar and wind plants only work due to government subsidies (using taxpayer money to make corporations rich at the same time I may add). Any real benefits are eliminated by high maintenance costs and corporate greed.
Rotting biomass - whether in a cow's digestive system or spread in an open field produces the same gas.
The only things I loosely agree with in the GND is fair corporate tax rates (minimum 20-30 percent, NO loopholes or possibility of tax breaks, offshore accounts, etc.),higher minimum wages, and public transportation infrastructure - which should both have been kept up over the years for the best interest of the people and the country.
All of the world's problems are due to corporate and banking manipulation and greed. There isn't anything they haven't poisoned or tainted.
Investment in progress is necessary and important. The cost of solar et al is going down while efficiency has increased. If you don't like 'green' alternative ideas, how far back do you think we should go - donkeys and carts? Sailing ships? There is no 'pure' living without using resources to survive. Keeping some balance between wild places and tamed ones is key.
Everything rots so I guess the earth knows what to do with methane, etc. What we can do with it is use it as fuel. Er, what was your point?
Agree that unregulated capitalism is inhumane and unsustainable for the earth and living things.
To add insult to injury, most of the financial benefits obtained from green technologies for the end user are calculated right down to the cent by the same corporations and companies who provide them... and they simply increase the cost and maintenance of those green systems to transfer the energy savings from the end user's pockets directly to the company. Some examples are: Electric cars, wind generators, solar panels, lithium battery storage systems, heat pumps, "energy star" appliances - all have high initial costs and even higher repair costs (engineered to fail) that work to offset the savings for the end user. These technologies should cost way less to purchase and maintain but they don't just because they are labelled "green."
How about energy star doors & windows, LED lights, programmable thermostats, or even high efficiency foam insulation... why do these products cost so much when they cost so little to produce? Simply because they are called "green" and you as the end user will save energy and money. The banks and corporations can't have that.
Interestingly enough - as you mentioned - the reason why solar and wind technologies have become more dramatically affordable for people over the past few years is only due to countries like China who provide those products directly to the end user through services like Alibaba - effectively eliminating the corporate middle man.
Chinese-made products are often cheaper, but that's a whole different subject involving labor, pollution, materials, etc.
Anyway, thx!