This is a post meant for all– so to the extent it sides with and against– this proposal, that’s what’s up. In a word (three words): some real vision. Deep public policy. Yeah, a lot of it is a bit crazy sounding, some frankly unrealistic. And, some it, just crazy-talk, like making air travel “unnecessary” and rebuilding every building. And did it actually mention what are we going to do about cow’s farting, really, really (yes, that was in the original proposal FAQ sheets even if they are being scrubbed, yes, from the web, all the details, say, here; and more, here that considers whether she did or did not propose giving money to people “unwilling to work” and did AOC tweet that or not, oh my)? Isn’t there maybe a YouTube video or a quick Google search to see how to make cows fart less?
That said, no one else in this country has been going national with visions for the future of society. And for that, the Green New Deal is a home run, borderline genius, in taking the risk to throw something like this on paper. No one. No one else has been doing this. And if America needs anything right now, it is some big, bold ideas. Less talk. More action. This is a plan that includes a lot of action. In this sense, the GND is (perhaps ironically) as American as apple pie. The United States of America is where big things (are supposed to) get done.
Another thing is that it is surely not going away. One, liberal/progressives– if you haven’t realized yet– are a strong, stick-together, motivated– political force in the country. They don’t let things go. They aren’t maybe much more than 1/3 the population. However, they have a lot of money (most of them– being in liberal, urban areas like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, etc). And they win a lot. Issues they bring up move across the country in lightning speed. Issues like gay marriage and transgender bathrooms go from a march to nationwide public policy in a flash. So, anyone, dismissing the New Green Deal out of hand might pay attention. This view might best be summarized in this New York Times op-ed in that while the GND has “sweeping vision” that may scare many as being too radically progressive, it is sure to achieve “incremental change.” Second, it’s a bit globalist, in part by nature. AOC didn’t come out of nowhere. She’s actually well-funded. She’s CLEARLY got media exposure. How? In part, because rich bankers and corporations want AOC out there. She is kind of the lightning rod for channeling all the progressive energy. A Bernie Sanders for the younger generation. The richest bankers and corporations don’t want a lot of AOC’s– but one, one that is from their own back yard of New York City. And, so, parts of this plan convenient to helping the banks consolidate more power and the corporations to keep competition at bay. In other words, the Green New Deal isn’t entirely only Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plan (more on this in a second).
So what is this Green New Deal? NPR summarizes here (which, don’t full yourself into thinking a trillions of dollar, 10-year plan to overhaul the entire country and economy can be easily summarized. You have to follow links to FAQs, like this one, and other blog posts (and there are even pages from AOC’s official House website that say “page not found” when you try to get more info, as they are apparently among the pages taken down because the proposal was– evidently in even her own feeling, a bit too far out there), and even the proposed House of Representatives legislation). A Green New Deal has long been touted by… (drum roll) the Green Party of the United States (of all things, go figure). Is this AOC thing their plan? In part, but no. You can try to break it all down (here‘s the overview, here‘s the full text). More than that, and importantly, before that, the Green New Deal has been a term, a thing, since at least 2007. In the New York Times, there was Thomas Friedman talking up just this type of idea. Hmmm, not so original.
Now back to the globalist banker part for a second. Because there are the concerns on the right about how could we possibly pay for all of this? Well, we have a Federal Reserve that can just print money out of thin air. They have been perfecting this for over 100 years now. And especially the last 10. Think “quantitative easing;” a fancy term that masks a more simple definition: “buying bonds with money from… the thin air.” And now, with everything computerized. It’s so easy for the Federal Reserve to just add an extra zero when “printing” the moola. And the Federal Reserve has got progressives wired in on this “Modern Money Theory” stuff (MMT is hot, hot, hot). Bankruptcy? We are talking about going down fighting climate change which is a moral imperative, so money isn’t an object. Literally. Read it, say, here.
Trains instead of planes? Actually, air travel is likely to become exponentially more pervasive. A true environmentalist might be better off trying to focus on making environmentally-friendly air planes than trying to think we will be taking boats to go to Hawaii, Asia and Europe. That said, yeah, High Speed Rail (HSR). It needs a kick in the pants and a little bit of help (costs a bazillion dollars and there are a lot of special interests against it– think the airlines themselves, Boeing). So to the extent the GND gets the country thinking about how to expand HSR that is a positive. Japan has been using it very well for decades. China has an expansive, brand new, HSR network. HSR (and variations of it, such as Elon Musk’s more visionary Hyperloop) have their places. Short distance trips between big cities (say Dallas to Houston, NYC to Boston) can be down better with HSR. This is where AOC’s naivety shows through. That’s her world. NYC to DC and back to NYC. Why couldn’t air travel be eliminated if that is all the travel you know and do? And that is kind of the narrow mindset of many progressives and liberals when it comes to thinking they can solve all the world’s problems. They think it can only be their way. And they take it up a notch to rally and march and stomp and bluster that it must be done only their way.
In a nutshell, conservatives or free-market proponents better get some big, bold plans of their own going (instead of merely pointing out the absurd aspects, like here, in hopes of the country rejecting the whole idea). Because the future is going to be owned by someone with vision. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has vision, and the chutzpah (and/or corporate media backing, some might call it social media sense) to get that message (however flawed) out to the country. Progressives have set the bar high. And anyone (thinking free market conservatives in particular) that knows anything about negotiating. If one party is out there at 100 on the scale and the other vision is a 50/50 thing, where does the negotiating settle out? And then liberal/progressives, if you really want to solve problems, those that could rise above, and learn to both a) listen to the other side and b) accept a little feedback might find you could accomplish a heck of a lot more. In other words, it doesn’t have to be entirely only your way. There could be great improvements to your plans that can come from a lot of places you might never expected. If only– ironically– the left could tolerate other opinions and ideas, even if in large part as outlandish (to you) as your own. And, ideas that develop in an echo chamber and sound so reasonable in the culmination of conversation among cohorts, aren’t really flushed-out ideas ready for prime time.
Finally, to the extent this plan, and/or plans like it, get muzzled and mocked, ultimately the loser is the United States of America and freedom (and all that freedom entails). In other words, the U.S.A. desperately needs to up the game– solve problems. We are stagnating. We are holding back vast potential (much of that because of the political establishment and corporate/banker desire for the status quo/power consolidation). We need these bold ideas. Then mold them. Mix them up with opposing bold ideas. And… well… make America great again.