Green New Deal shows Dems’ shift to far left

Thank you for being one of our most loyal readers. Please consider supporting community journalism by subscribing.


The National Review on March 11 reported the passing of Pat Cadell, former Democratic pollster, adviser to presidents, adviser to the Clinton White House and Fox News contributor. Tellingly, considering his last posting, Cadell, according to NR, felt that his party had hollowed out, that it had abandoned its core principles, and in the hands of coastal elites, had taken a dismissive attitude to its blue-collar base.

While he was disillusioned with both parties, he would be shocked at what “coastal elites” have done to his party. Just as Obamacare, 10 years in, has shown that naysayers were right about costs, accessibility and coverage, the New Left’s menu of policies has dire portents unless reined in by more moderate Dems, working with Republicans.

The Green New Deal is a case in point. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and don’t line my ball cap with aluminum foil, but I do see parallels between what that legislation proposes and what has been tried, and failed, in totalitarian governments.

“Applebaum’s Iron Curtain: The Closing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956” shows that a coordinated effort to introduce and entrench totalitarian government involved such tactics as discrediting, attacking, making one an enemy of the people and generally intimidating opponents into silence. The rise of political correctness and a double standard, aimed at the “privileged” middle class, especially white males, sounds sadly similar.

What is striking about NR’s discussion of the Green New Deal is that it echoes what Applebaum said. It calls the plan “a utopian enviro-socialist sensibility already outmoded when ..Obama was pushing it years ago...and when Friedman...was pushing it before him...and when the Communist Party USA was pushing it before him.”

It calls for a series of 10-year plans in which the government puts the entire U.S. economy under government control. Alarming is that the approach conjoins issues so that objection to its contents labels opponents as societal malcontents.

For instance, climate change is linked with abortion rights, and carbon dioxide emissions are connected to racial justice. How does one question climate change’s basic premise without sounding misogynistic or racist? National Review has it right: this approach reveals deficient thinking. These are separate problems, deserving separate approaches. Making them one large issue intimidates any who dare disagree.

This plan sounds like Swift’s ridicule of amateur scientists in “Gulliver’s Travels.” Among other things, they sought to extract sunlight from cucumbers. On balance, does that sound any stranger than eliminating the beef industry because of cow flatulence?

Bill O’Boyle

Elm City