As New Green Deal Democrats cement their hold, climate change emerges as a top priority

[babylonsister]

As New Green Deal Democrats cement their hold, climate change emerges as a top priority
Climate is rarely a big talking point for either party. New faces in Congress look set to change that.
E.A. Crunden
Nov 17, 2018, 8:00 am


A bold new generation of Democrats are already pushing forward on climate action, in a dramatic change of pace that could spell a very different tune in Washington come January, as well as within the wider party.

After retaking the House of Representatives earlier this month, Democrats have quickly found themselves divided on how to proceed on tackling climate change. Republicans and Democrats alike have largely waffled on addressing climate change, to the dismay of activists. But that could be about to change.

During the midterm elections, a crop of fresh Democratic faces began calling for a “Green New Deal,” one that would allow for the creation of sustainable jobs while rapidly easing away from fossil fuels. Then-candidates like New York City’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Detroit’s Rashida Tlaib also highlighted environmental justice issues, pointing to the extreme pollution plaguing low-income communities and people of color.

Now that they’re headed to Congress, those candidates appear to be making good on their promises. On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez made headlines when she joined climate activists converging in front of Democratic California Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office.

“Should Leader Pelosi become the next speaker of the House, we need to tell her that we’ve got her back in showing and pursuing the most progressive energy agenda that this country has ever seen,” she said.

more...

https://thinkprogress.org/as-new-green-deal-democrats-cement-their-hold-climate-change-emerges-as-a-top-priority-21d5449b0ec7/

[shanny]

1. What an idea! Preserve the carrying capacity

of the only planet we have!

[Small-Axe]

2. Unfortunately the New Green Deal Democrats are a stalking horse for...

former Republican Cenk Uygur's Justice Democrats who have already announced they plan to primary incumbent Democrats.

Clearly, there is a master-plan by insurgents to capture our party and to make it a less liberal (and more socialist) party.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/ocasio-cortez-throws-support-behind-campaign-to-primary-democrats-1000529

[DBoon]

3. Then liberals should co-opt the best of these ideas.

FDR did just this.

When a news reporter asked socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas if FDR was carrying out the socialist agenda, he replied "Yes, in a coffin"

[Small-Axe]

6. Liberal Democrats are already way out ahead on these issues.

As FDR beat back populists on the far-right and the far-left, today's Democrats face the same challenge.

The party of FDR is worth fighting for.

[guillaumeb]

17. And FDR asked the more progressive elements of the population to force him to do what was done.

And we are seeing that pressure building now. A needed push to counter the steady move rightward of the political narrative.

[Small-Axe]

30. BS. False narrative.

[pnwmom]

23. These ideas CAME FROM LIBERALS like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Democrats don't need to co-opt their own ideas.

[Small-Axe]

31. Precisely.

[babylonsister]

4. Haha! Ok.

Has she been sworn in yet?

[Small-Axe]

7. No. But already looking to oust incumbent Democrats.

[babylonsister]

9. She is a freshman with no power. I'm settling down and

seeing how all-powerful she actually is.

[BlueWI]

5. What about the actual issue of the immediate calamity of

climate change? At this point, we all need to face this reality or condemn those that come after to the full impact of a warming planet.

Elected reps carrying this message should be heard. As the only major party that takes climate change seriously, it's up to us to make the issue a bigger priority and act!

[Small-Axe]

8. Of course it is. But portraying Democrats as if are the enemies of the planet contravenes the truth.

[BlueWI]

11. It's called accountability.

At the end of the day, this issue has collective responsibility built into it, Democrats and everyone else. Democrats drive cars, eat meat, do not insulate as much as they could, not unlike Republicans. If our elected Democrats can't lead a change in the the course of things, splitting hairs about whose fault it is becomes meaningless. Our children and grandchildren get to live with the consequences of our failure.

Neither party has consistently elevated this issue to the level of prominence that it deserves - Republicans with their denial, Democrats with limited actions and inconsistent advocacy. We had a supermajority in 08 and didn't fast track any game-changing domestic legislation. The Paris Accords were an earnest effort but more is obviously needed.

Even on DU, the Pelosi hagiography posts far outnumber posts related to the imminent climate emergency. There's also not much mention of the landmark suit by the younger generation that is calling for climate change. Who knows where climate will reside in the legislative agenda of the new Democratic house majority. There are no excuses if it's not given a place of prominence.

I'm middle aged myself and I will be the first to admit that my own selfish choices on carbon footprint making are a failure to lead. Everyone needs to raise their standards and make change happen, and all efforts to elevate this issue should be respected. Otherwise, meaningful action will be postponed even longer. There may be a chance for a good bill in 2020, so no more excuses!

[pnwmom]

54. We had a supermajority for several months in 09 and had to use

it to save the crashing economy and to get Obamacare passed.

Which was game-changing domestic legislation.

Obama came into office supporting strong cap-and-trade legislation and other environmental priorities, but in the couple years right before, the Republicans had taken a sharp turn away from supporting environmental legislation. Neither the Democrats nor the environmental organizations were prepared for that. For example, environmental organizations assumed that if they worked with business on legislation that business could support, the GOP would come along. They didn't. So Obama wasn't able to get legislation though that previous GOP Congresses would have supported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/16/why-has-climate-legislation-failed-an-interview-with-theda-skocpol/?utm_term=.7e9d959de94a

[BlueWI]

63. A lot of true history here

but the bottom line is we didn't get the signature environmental legislation done. Let's be unafraid to look in the mirror and say this and quit patting ourselves on the back for past efforts that ultimately failed. Learn the lessons and apply them to today.

Obamacare is great, especially for mature adults who rely most extensively on health coverage for wellness. Doesn't help future generations that will see the worst climate consequences due to our collective failures.

The problem persists. Excuses change nothing.

So what's the next move? How will the current House majority help build support for signature legislation in 2020, hopefully with Democratic leadership? The idea of a Green New Deal is timely. Don't pile on against the messenger - this is unwise as strategy and unkind to those who come after us.

[babylonsister]

66. Thanks for your posts. I'm with you.

We need a lot more emphasis put on climate change. The situation is dire, as witnessed by all the calamities we see just about every day, and only predicted to get worse. The topic isn't sexy enough for so many to pay attention to. They might when it's too late, and it already could be.

[BlueWI]

68. Thanks!

I am personally going to strive now to stop eating beef and dairy, and I grew up in Nebraska and live in Wisconsin, beef and dairy capitals. I want to be able to stand before my children and say I was mistakenly in downplaying this issue before, but I am trying to change my behavior and advocate for change.

[Honeycombe8]

37. Socialism is MORE liberal, not less, isn't it? nt

[Small-Axe]

41. Absolutely not.

As you move away from being a liberal you become less liberal not more liberal.

This is a common mistake.

[Honeycombe8]

47. Socialism is more liberal, as far as I know.

"As you move away from being a liberal you become less liberal" - that has nothing to do with my statement. If you move left of liberal, you are more, not less, liberal.

Progressive.....liberal.....moderate liberal....centrist....moderate conservative...conservative....alt-right.

Socialism is on the far left spectrum. Fascism is on the far right.

Democrats started, and strongly support, our social programs (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.). Republicans ideologically are against social programs.

[JHan]

48. socialism is not more liberal. You're mixing concepts.

I don't know why people love to water down socialism.

And no you don't need socialism to have a social safety net. In Europe you have countries with vast social safety nets but with liberal economies ( very liberal)

[Small-Axe]

49. If you move to the left (from being a liberal) you become more of a leftist and less of a liberal.

Far-left and far-right are not so different. Both are anti-liberal.

[Honeycombe8]

52. I disagree.

Merriam Webster:

Liberal: Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change."

Republicans are anti-govt.

Socialists are uber-govt.

[Small-Axe]

60. It is a bad idea to use dictionaries as a source of understanding political philosophies.

These are wholly inadequate.

FDR was a liberal. Stalin was not more liberal than FDR because of Stalin's belief in an all-powerful totalitarian state. He was not liberal at all.

Nor was Hitler.

I think you'd do well to study political science more deeply.

[Honeycombe8]

62. You're mixing up different types of terms.

Totalitarianism is not socialism. Totaliarianism is the reliance on a dictator to control everything, and is just a description...not a type of govt or economic system. A synonym is Authoritarianism. This describes a govt that generally has one ruler that controls everything, or almost everything. It has nothing to do with whether the country also is socialistic or not.

Socialism is an economic system and social system.

Stalin's being totalitarian has nothing to do with whether his country was socialist or not. Hitler's desciption of his party as socialist was intentionally misleading, of course. Part of his lying to the people, much like Trump does. Although Hitler did control the country as a dictator (totalitarianism, authoritarianism).

FDR was a liberal. He believed in some socialist programs, of course, as well as capitalism.

I understand your confusion. But to say that "socialism" as an economic and social system (where the govt is more involved in social programs for the people) is to the RIGHT of liberalism is a misunderstanding of what socialism is.

I think you'd do well to read up on the distinctions of these terms, and particularly socialism.

Cortez and Bernie Sanders self-identify as Socialist Democrats. I think there is no doubt that they are to the left of the more moderate positions of the Democratic Party, which believes in a capitalistic economic system with some social programs (like FDR and most other First World countries). I think they themselves would say they are to the left of the normal liberal Democrat. "Liberalism" is a political term, not an economic or governmental or social system term.

Trying to say that socialism (reliance on more govt involvement for a country, as an economic or social system) is far right of liberalism is silly.

[pnwmom]

56. It might be more to the left economically speaking, without being more liberal. n/t

[Voltaire2]

70. Oh boo hoo. If new people change the party

by outvoting and out organizing, that’s democracy in action.

[GulfCoast66]

10. What bullshit. Like democrats have not always followed climate science

Just more divisive shit from the cheap seats.

President Obama helped drive the Paris Accords. If we had a Democratic Congress it would be a ratified treaty.

All this new green democrat bullshit.

Post like this just try to divide us on an issue we all agree.

I wonder who might benefit from that?

[babylonsister]

12. I think people are numb since dt.

All he wants to do is tear it down.

Cable does the same thing by rarely mentioning it.

I'm very happy people who represent us are making this a priority.

[GulfCoast66]

14. It has always been a Democratic priority

But certain elements of the left will use it as a fissure to divide us.

When the House can’t get anything done on the issue since we don’t control the Senste or Presidancy look for the divisive post to become more common.

[Small-Axe]

42. Exactly.

The left is attempting to use our own core issues as a wedge against us.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. We agree on lots of things. But that misses the point

What gets dealt with with the greatest sense of urgency is both a valid topic for discussion and even lobbying.

Some felt in the past that Democrats did not make it a high enough priority to resolve the Dreamer issue while we still had large majorities in both houses. Some feel Democrats have not done enough to prioritize voter suppression. Some felt politicians of all parties were too complacent about police violence against Blacks, and the Black Lives Matter movement emerged. Some felt that incumbents from both parties were once given too much cover to bury allegations of sexual misconduct.

The basic Democratic position on all these matters has never really been in doubt, but how forcefully we address and prioritize them is a valid issue for discussion and debate.

[GulfCoast66]

16. It's been 8 years since we controlled it all.

There was no such as dreamers back then. Getting the ACA was a heavy life.

Don’t be blaming democrats for the state we are in.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I'm not. But you are denying political reality

These types of debates are real and ongoing inside the Democratic Party at all levels, and they always will be. It is a fact that some immigration advocates were unhappy that Democrats didn't move to make immigration reform a higher priority 8 to ten years ago when we had greater control of government. There were reasons pro and con for Democratic leadership making the choices that they did.

They may or may not have been called Dreamers but there sure as hell were children teens and young adults around in 2008 who had been brought into the USA by their parents, who knew no other home than America, but who had no legal status that allowed them to feel secure in America or pursue citizenship here.

[GulfCoast66]

25. But you are again blaming democrats for not seeing into the future

I remember that time. Everyone assumed it would be an easy reach to do an immigration bill. Most republicans were on board.

No one foresaw a racist demagogue being president. Even under trump the senate passed a bill protecting dreamers. Had the house taken it up it would have passed. But because of the Child Molester rule the republicans have the house did not bring it to the floor.

Stop blaming democrats for fucking republican actions.

It just bullshit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Again, no I am not

We both remember that time. There were damn good reasons to prioritize the stimulus bill and health care reform over immigration reform, compelling reasons, but not everyone was fully persuaded about that. Those who weren't within the Democratic coalition were in the minority at the time. They wanted to lock it in quickly after George W. Bush had tried and failed to get it done. 4 times out of 5 it all would have worked out anyway. I only brought that example up because it is a case in point. Not all issues that most Democrats agree on can all be the top priority of Democrats in any given session of Congress. It is literally impossible. So there is always some internal debate over short term priorities. Sometimes those debates are one sided, sometimes it is a closer call.

[Honeycombe8]

51. It depends on what you call "reform."

What some call "reform," others call removing it, wiping it out, adding to it, etc.

If you're speaking of Obama's administration, we were on the verge of a second Great Depression. That took priority over everything.

The newbies will learn. Because something is important, even critical...doesn't mean the country will agree, and even if they do, will agree with the plan to address it.

People dying and suffering in the here and now because of no health care...was dealt with. It was incredibly difficult to do..and wasn't the plan they started with. It went halfway.

For immigration, there is no single idea of how to "reform" it. And just because the House Dems could agree on a plan, doesn't mean the Senate will, or the constituents. I don't know what reform you're referring to, but the DREAM act should get through, if the Senate agrees. I think constituents are on board with that. I don't think they're on board with much of anything else regarding immigration, though.

It's untrue to say that Dems have waffled on climate change. It's one of my top issues...the environment generally. And has been for decades. I remember hearing that mercury was becoming a problem in the oceans. The govt didn't do anything. Fast forward: all tuna we buy has mercury levels in it to the extent that we aren't supposed to eat it more than once a week or something (and pregnant women not at all).

Some scientists say that we have passed the point of being able to address climate change significantly in the near future. We can still address it for future generations, though. And we can make it better somewhat, I suppose, in our lifetime.

[babylonsister]

19. " how forcefully we address and prioritize them is a valid issue for discussion and debate."

I totally agree. We NEED to talk about it.

[betsuni]

15. Yes. Who do Republicans always mock when it snows in winter (global warming)? AL GORE.

Who was mocked for telling people how to get better gas mileage and to put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat when he was president? Jimmy Carter. Oh, I guess they're part of that old guard status quo establishment and don't count.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Right. We democrats don't need Progressives(what ever that means)

To instruct us on policy

[Honeycombe8]

39. Thank you. I posted a similar thing, to. It's false to say that Dems "waffled" on it.

They have led on it.

My main issue is the environment, but something sounds off about this group. They've given themselves a name? That sounds like a third party movement more than a group of Democrats. The Green Party and all. Jill Stein. ???

[UniteFightBack]

65. I know like this is a new thing that Dem's care about...it's the Gross Outdated Party that

is clearly getting in the way.

[pnwmom]

21. Yeah, tell AL GORE that Democrats don't care about climate change.

That's a crock.

Or even Jimmy Carter, who pushed for solar energy and other forms of non-carbon energy decades ago. He even put solar panels on the White House, which Republicans later removed.

[LisaM]

22. So unlike the old Dems like Gore and Kerry.

Honestly, Democrats agree on this and have since the 1970s.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. The Democratic Party (in general) has not made Cimate Change an important enough issue. Period.

Al Gore showed great leadership on this issue, he made it central to his life's work. Almost all Democrats agree with him, but unlike Gore, not many have elevated Climate Change to the defining issue for the planet for the current generation of leaders to decisively deal with. A strong case can be made that we are at a Pearl Harbor like moment of global reckoning

I don't recall seeing a single political ad in 2018 produced by any national Democratic entity (either the DNC, or the Senate and/or House Democratic PACs) that focused on climate change. Maybe I missed them, but they sure were easy to miss if there were any. The frigging planet is destabilizing with horrific consequences for the very near future and we are already watching runaway forest fires and devastating floods already along with eroding shorelines and more powerful storms.Still this barely registered as a national topic of political debate during the midterms

"Ocasio-Cortez and her allies" for the most part are of the younger generations that will most negatively be impacted during their lifetimes by climate change.

I am not knee jerk anti toward veteran lawmakers who speak with the voice of experience. Republicans of course serve the fossil fuel devils, but I do not hesitate to state that veteran Democrats, collectively with exceptions, have not treated climate change with the dire urgency that it requires. We need a Marshall plan for our energy economy. We need the equivalent of JFK's vow to land a Man on the Moon by the end of the decade. Conventional thinking about what is and is not possible is no longer an acceptable option. Prior to U.S. entry into WWII conventional thinking would have called it impossible for the U.S. to build, on short notice, the maritime fleet that we did, let along the air force and armor units that our mobilized manufacturing base quickly churned turned out.

I am with "Ocasio-Cortez and her allies" on this one. They are not going to tear apart the Democratic Party over this. I think it is worth perhaps having to smooth over some ruffled feathers later on this one.

PS And I think Nancy Pelosi is responding well to this so called challenge. More power to her, she is the Speaker we need.

[LisaM]

26. I heard Kerry speak in 2004 while he was running.

He spoke long and knowledgeably about climate change and how important it was and to say he didn't prioritize it is simply untrue. I have also seen many ads. It might have been nice if the subject had been covered by any of the debate moderaters but they were fixated on crap.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. 2004 was 14 years ago

The situation has grown much more dire since then. It geometrically becomes more of a crisis every year that passes, and with each passing year the steps that must be taken to mitigate against climate change become more drastic. Failing that we face a runaway warming cycle in the very near future.

[herding cats]

29. I was also active and aware then. I agree with you.

To pretend this wasn't a top priority of Democratic leaders is laughable. We, and they, have been screaming this from the rooftops my entire adult life. It's a huge part of why I aligned with the party back when I was young.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Democratic messaging in the midterms, to the extent that it was coordinated...

...and to some extent it was, focused on an economic message. Raising the minimum wage, unfair tax cuts that favored the rich, protecting Obamacare provisions regarding preexisting conditions, protecting social security and medicare and medicaid. That was the focus. We all know that. And I'm not saying it was wrong for that to have been the focus, but climate change was never front and center, even though there were record hurricanes, floods fires, and temperatures.

Yes Democrats are pro environment, but it wasn't a central issue we campaigned on as a party in the midterms. And probably that was the right call for winning back the House. Just like in some prior years Democrats didn't make gun control a central electoral issue though almost all Democrats believe we need more common sense gun legislation. Still, we weren't leading forcefully nationally on that issue until after Sandy Hook (after previously come to believe that pushing for an assault weapon ban in the past had cost Democrats some elections).

Now we have retaken the House and yes it is time for Democrats to decide which of the many issues we believe in should move to the front and center. I think it is true to say that younger generations of Democrats are more likely to want Climate Change loudly embraced as a core priority. They are the ones who will spend most of their lives in the world that Climate Change is ushering in.

[Small-Axe]

32. They are already talking about primarying Democrats.

This is a ploy for power, where they attempt to appropriate longstanding Democratic positions and attempt to falsely paint liberal Democrats as corporatist neoliberals.

Personally, I've had it with these BS tactics.

[hatrack]

35. Gosh, thanks for filling us in on your personal preferences . . .

Be sure to let us know who you think should be allowed to discuss a full-blown planetary disaster as something that, y'know, ought to be addressed at some point.

It's so droll
When you're out on a stroll
And someone thinks they're on a roll
But they're actually digging a hole . . .

[Small-Axe]

38. We are not stupid.

[Small-Axe]

46. I shant miss you.

Ciao.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I think you give the new class of Democrats elected too little credit

and in doing so I feel you are contributing to division by throwing around terms like "a ploy for power". I will watch the coming Congress as will you. I am betting that the Democratic Party will be strengthened and invigorated by all of the new blood flowing into it, from center left to more clearly left of center.

And I trust Nancy Pelosi's leadership to help integrate a new generation of potential leaders into our party.

I don't think either of us will convince the other of our positions right now. Time will truly tell.

[Honeycombe8]

45. So it's not that Democrats waffled (which is a lie). It's that YOU would go about it differently.

2018 - I didn't see an environmental ad, either. I didn't see ANY ads by Democrats, actually. I live in a red state. The ads were local, so we didn't have any Democrat ads.

Cortez and the group are young. They don't really know what has been done, and don't understand that just wishing something were so, makes it happen. They'll learn.

The environment is my #1 issue. I can say that Democrats have pushed this issue for decades. But they are only half the country, and sometimes less than that. If we had a dictator who cared, more could be done. But this is a democracy, where half the country is rabid red and oil-addicted.

This group sounds more like a third party movement than a group of freshmen in the Democratic Party. I hope I'm wrong. Fresh blood is good. But one thing I noticed throughout my years of working is that the new manager or new guy at work...the one who starts off thinking he knows a better way to do things, or who wants to dictate new procedures or re-assign work, before he even knows where the bathroom is...that guy doesn't last long. Just sayin'.

[JHan]

55. I share your frustration.

I am in favor of a Special Committee, it's crazy that this is something we're only NOW contemplating ( Now meaning it finally making headlines because Dems have wanted this in the past). But Democrats focused on healthcare and wages during the election - and I have no problem with that either.

The real outrage was in 2016 when not a single question about climate change made it to the presidential debates.

Still, Democrats are not the only actors in this, they are not the ones with the only agency.

There are countervailing forces and influences that must be acknowledged. We are here because of a collective failure over decades. Republicans are more culpable because they have demonstrated they are not interested in even coming to the table with options, they've veered away from this activism since the aughts. Hard to believe that at one time people like McCain and then Governor Crist appeared to want to do something then ... nothing.

But what are the realities? No leading economy on the planet right now has been able to meet reduced CO2 targets, China has shown a slight dip in emissions but it is not enough. A Leader has to be cognizant of various factors - yes the climate but also the economics:

Realities ( which no doubt you already know but I'll say anyway):

We are up against well funded fossil fuel barons, and we need tactics to counter their efforts. This is not just about members of Congress themselves, but pushing against narratives about coal etc. That means to stop feeling sorry for extractive industries like coal. Political reality? - Jobs and resistance to change and what to do in the interim while we make changes.

We have clean energy options, we use them, but as of yet, they are unable to meet our energy demands completely.

No one election that will change these facts, primarying democrats is not going to do it either. Cortez has a job to do and that is represent her district. She interjected herself in the Davids Welder primary which at the time I thought bizarre and dumb but it's water under the bridge. If she's serious she has to work on networking and persuading her colleagues to get on her side of things. All this talk about primarying is a stupid distraction.

Back to climate change: If you want to do something now, you have to make electricity itself defunct - spike the cost so high people run to alternatives and those alternatives must be cheaper RIGHT now. We also have to get China on board because they produce the most CO2 and they have their manufacturing output concerns. Any Green Plan has to look not just within but also *Outside* with other nations. Honestly, there’s really no single election that can stop this, but in the mean time we also have to keep our opponents - a political party gripped with nihilism, dare I say omnicide- out of power. And that means you can't just go rolling in districts and thinking you know what's best. This is the time for persuasion and skilled use of the power we have, not weakening ourselves with factional bullshit.

[Honeycombe8]

40. Since before then, even. Republicans in the older days were also on board.

Sometimes young people are idealistic and don't know what's what, and don't know history.

[Honeycombe8]

34. "Republicans and Democrats alike have largely waffled on addressing climate change" ???

I don't think Democrats have "waffled" on addressing climate change, from the time it became clear it existed.

That statement in that article is a misrepresentation.

Maybe some people haven't done exactly what someone else would like, or have done things that someone else would not do, for various reasons...that doesn't mean they "waffled." That's called a difference of opinion on how to tackle it, as well as reality, and ability to get others to go along with it.

Heck, even the old establishment Republicans approved of addressing climate damage from human activities (Nixon created the EPA).

Not nearly enough has been done, obviously. Some scientists say that we are past the point where we can significantly change things in our lifetime. Trump has taken the country back years, as far as addressing climate change and curtailing damage to the environment.

I hope we're able to make some big strides in this area, though, or earth will become unbearable at times.

But I don't think people want to do what it takes to protect the environment. The #1 thing people can do for climate change is to stop having multiple children. I don't see that happening here. China has the law, still, restricting the number of children a family can have, I think.

[jalan48]

50. Climate change doesn't fit well with identity politics. It's importance supersedes the importance

of any one individual group. It's the #1 issue facing us. Some have a hard time accepting that.

[betsuni]

53. "Climate change doesn't fit well with identity politics."

WTF does that mean?

[Small-Axe]

58. It is the attack line du jour against liberal Democrats.

I'd laugh but, you know.

[betsuni]

59. Yes.

Never heard the "Democrats are too busy with identity politics to think about climate change" line before. It's one-size-fits-all, no matter how silly.

[Small-Axe]

61. And the "identity politics" that's being disparaged means that we stand with women...

people of color, the LGBTQ community, and other minority groups whose rights are being infringed.

I'm proud that fighting for every person's human and civil rights is central to being a liberal Democrat.

The populist economic message throws minorities and women under the bus. It insults our heritage as a party IMO.

[UniteFightBack]

64. Climate change has always been a top priority for the Democratic Party....it's the Grand Outdated

Party that stands in the way.

[PDittie]

69. That's not entirely accurate

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/16/veteran-democrats-wary-leftward-push-climate-977988

Here's a list, from a Tweet, of how much money the Democrats mentioned in this article have taken from fossil fuel companies.

@RepCuellar: $708,127 @FrankPallone: $135,689 @RepPeterDeFazio: $74,420 @RepLowenthal: $47,850 @RepDonBeyer: $47,452 @RepHuffman: $18,000 @RepGaramendi: $7,750

[Donkees]

67. Green New Deal is a Global Mobilization