Reductios ad absurdem can cut both ways. Perhaps we should maximize the benefit, wealth, health, and comfort of the people alive now, in exchange for a completely uninhabitable earth in a century?
Of course we should have both, and I hope we do! But I will order them 1) Climate change, 2) Health Care, rather than the other way around. If the GOP weren’t complete asshats, this wouldn’t even be an issue, but we all know that already.
I don’t mean it as a reduction to absurdity. I’m just saying that, for a lot of voters, it is the most important thing; and that is entirely understandable. If my child is going to die anyway, when s/he could easily be saved, why do you expect me to care what happens a hundred years from now, especially when no one can say what will happen with anything approaching certainty?
You have described one reason why, as Jon Lovitz put it, climate change is an issue almost perfectly engineered to be difficult to solve. Of course, carbon dioxide is going to do what carbon dioxide does, regardless of human priorities.
It’s interesting that we quite willingly send our offspring to die in wars about political matters that will only matter to history books a century hence, but when it comes to keeping the planet habitable, it’s a different story.
I wouldn’t sacrifice my daughter’s life to have a carbon tax, but the whole issue here is that if we are going to solve climate change before such Hobson’s Choices (Sophie’s Choices? something like that) become par for the course, we need to take much more drastic action now than we have thusfar.
I agree with you. I’m just saying that the prospect of that is quite remote even if it is the top priority, and that for many people it won’t be the top priority, and indeed what is their stop priority is both easier to address and — at least slightly — more likely to pass.
ShivaX
6317
Yeah, you need to win an election to deal with climate control and ironically, climate control isn’t really enough to win on it’s own. Because humans don’t deal with the future that well, whereas healthcare is an immediate thing that most people see day-to-day.
With game 7 of the World Series on last night, I actually had some TV commercials playing for a change. (Almost everything I watch is pre-recorded, this was the very rare exception.) And so I was one of the millions who got to see this:
I’m sure we’ll see a whole lot more of this in the next year (barring impeachment and removal). Trump touting his “accomplishments” in a way that appeals to his base. Portrayed as a strong leader, big on helping the downtrodden worker, strong against terrorists, keeping those dirty immigrants out, fighting against those Democrats who want to ruin it all.
Anyone with half a brain and the willingness to use it knows what crap it is, but that’s not the point. This kind of presentation is going to work great in the largely rural districts that won him the last election. Those folks don’t want to hear reality; they want to see someone telling them that good things are happening and it’s because of the guy they voted for last time, so they should do it again. I hope the Democratic nominee (whoever that is) can find media people savvy enough to counter it properly, because convincing a small number of those folks to stay home could be enough to prevent another disaster.
KevinC
6320
That seems to be quite the dramatized headline.
That’s a wake up call to not “blow this for us”? The worries about a yawning chasm seem to be solely on the writer’s mind, not Obama’s.
Matt_W
6321
Oh my god dear Jesus, that entire article is bullshit. What the author doesn’t realize is that he himself is part of the commentariat. So is Obama. For them to be lecturing us, the actual rank and file, about what the rank and file think is pretty rich. No shit most Democrats are more moderate than the excesses of the Twitterati. Fuck Twitter. It’s not real life. For most people, most of us here on the ground, “wokeness” isn’t a bludgeon; it’s about empathy. What we care about, for reals, is policy.
Also, holy Christ I can’t believe Obama dragged out the “college kids” dead horse. Jesus that thing is just a pile of greasy bones and rotten heaps of flesh by now. It’s so 4 years ago. Even Ken White, who was a master college kid pugilist has semi-acknowledged that perhaps giving so much credence to what dumb 20 year olds are saying was a silly distraction when you have adults with actual power committing crimes out in broad daylight, locking kids in cages, etc.
I somewhat agree. I think Obama’s 2 minutes talk is important for everyone to watch. I completely agree with his points. But Obama’s is a very skilled communicator, he doesn’t need some less skilled person to interpret for the rest of us. It does seem like a hell of a lot of the activism on college campus is calling out various people. That will backfire in all kinds of ways.
“The problem today is that we have these kids out there saying mean things about people who are just trying to commit some crimes, destroy the environment, and establish a permanent reign.”
I’m on board with “don’t boo, vote,” but does he have any evidence that the people saying mean things on Twitter are actually doing less in other ways? Or that ideas that get less Twitter attention from one side get more progress for that side?
Timex
6324
This is the part that i think matters:
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how Mitt Romney performed in that first debate in 2012. Remember? He took all these moderate-sounding positions, on immigration, civil rights, a whole bunch of things. My friends and I were tearing our hair out. How can he get away with this? After all those months of severe conservatism and self-deportation and all the rest of it, now suddenly he sounds like—well, his father back in 1967? How dare he!
And on the right—did they get mad at him? Did they scream apostasy? Denounce him as a sell-out and stooge for socialism that they always knew him to be? No. They saw us liberals tearing our hair out and they went: Good for you, Mitt! Keep trolling the libs. We’ll keep our mouths shut til after Election Day.
It didn’t end up working. Obama woke up from the nap he was taking during that first debate and campaigned hard and won. But it brought Romney closer than he’d ever been.
Today’s left would not give Warren that space. Would not let her troll the cons so hard. This, I think, is what Obama was talking about. Life is messy. There are ambiguities. Voters on the right accepted about three million of them in 2016 to keep Hillary out of the White House. They kept their eyes on the prize. I hope voters on the left can do the same.
SlyFrog
6325
Yes. The “don’t blow this for us” was linked to the wrong part of the article- it was actually about another part of Obama’s response. Basically the part where Obama was saying don’t become radicals who eat your own because they’re never pure enough for you.
Yes, we should aspire to the resounding success of… checks notes …Mitt Romney. If we don’t follow that playbook we will surely lose.
Timex
6327
I don’t think you’ve fully considered what is actually being said.
ShivaX
6328
Tons of liberals were trashing Obama on Twitter after saying it, so… I think they proved his point.
He wasn’t a real liberal, he was basically Bush III, etc, etc.
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I’m unclear why this particularly convoluted parsing of why Romney got a bounce after the first debate should persuade us that the key to victory is to embrace moderates.
First of all, there were many reasons that debate was bad for Obama and good for Romney. Obama didn’t take it seriously, was underprepared for debating because he thought debates were dumb, and was taken by surprise when Mitt did his etch-a-sketch thing. None of those factors have anything to do with some forbearance on the part of right wingers - Mitt’s strategy in the debate was successful because he zigged when Obama expected him to go straight. The way it played out after that, though, saw him crash back as the debate performances evened out and Mitt’s true colors shined through.
Are we supposed to believe that this is good evidence that the way for Warren to win is to suddenly adopt a bunch of Biden’s positions in September, but only if her supporters are willing to trust her that it’s only a lie she’s telling to dupe the centrists into voting for her?
Well if the positions Biden take are more popular with the electorate as whole than hers, I’d damn well hope she’d soften her tone. I’d hope that given a choose between being open to embrace some of Joe Biden’s position or 4 more years of Trump, purity would take a back seat.
Alstein
6331
Given that 20% of Americans already want to see their political enemies killed I think population culling is what’s going to happen in the end.
Obama’s getting roasted for that speech. While older Dems see Obama as a sacred cow, the younger Dems just see him as hamburger.
I’d be just fine with Warren duping centrists then doing her own thing. That’s ultimately what you do in a general election anyways- and we need systematic change to avoid someone worse than Trump in the future. If Trump wasn’t a moron we’d be in bad bad shape now.
The one good thing about a Bernie surge is that it does make Warren look more moderate.
Timex
6332
Yes, it’s largely about the latter, in that if she pivots to the center in the general election, far leftists shouldn’t destroy her, and instead give her room to maneuver for the sake of winning the election. Then, after winning, you can talk about whatever policy you actually want to enact.
