From Libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
A group of Democrats unveiled their “Green New Deal” (GND) that calls for a “‘10-year national mobilization’ on the scale of the original New Deal” geared to “transform the U.S. economy to combat climate change.”
Remember that the 1930s FDR New Deal was a catastrophic failure if the goal was economic well-being. But it was a smashing success at expanding the power and scope of government interference in the economy. The drastic transformation of the U.S. economy would require, against the choices that Americans would otherwise make, would do the same, this time likely on the scale of totalitarian power. If the climate is in a “crisis” that is an imminent “‘existential threat’ to the planet,” and human activity is the cause, then what control can’t the government impose on us? What limits on government power will be left under the government-imposed mobilization plan? None–and that’s the point.
But is climate change the primary factor motivating the GND? I doubt it. Remember that the Democratic Party is now a socialist party–a democratic socialist party.
Poor Mike. As memory degrades so does the ability to reason. His memory tells him:
Remember that the 1930s FDR New Deal was a catastrophic failure if the goal was economic well-being.
Here are the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures:
1930 – 8.9 The Republican tax cuts and deregulation trigger the Great Depression.
1931 – 15.9
1932 – 23.6
1932 – 23.6%
1933 – 24.9% FDR takes office and inherits peak GOP unemployment rate.
1934 – 21.7%
1935 – 20.1%
1936 – 17%
1937- 14.3% FDR caves to GOP on taxes and cuts spending
1938- 19% Americans lose jobs
1939- 17.2% FDR continues programs and taxes
1940- 14.6%
1941- 9.9%
1942 – 4.7% US goes to war
Somehow Mike’s memory also tells him:
Remember that the Democratic Party is now a socialist party–a democratic socialist party.
If that’s so, then we must remember the White Nationalist Party of Trump is a now a socialist party- a National Socialist Party.
Neither is true, but ignorance, far Right ideological beliefs, nationalism, racism, anger and hate are the foundations of the Trumpism and National Socialism.
And of course we can add impaired memory.
“Remember that the 1930s FDR New Deal was a catastrophic failure if the goal was economic well-being.”
Really? I wonder how. Mr. LaFerrara certainly won’t explain, you’re just supposed to take at faith that his assertions are true. What a wonderful way to make an “argument”.
“If the climate is in a “crisis” that is an imminent “‘existential threat’ to the planet,” and human activity is the cause, then what control can’t the government impose on us? What limits on government power will be left under the government-imposed mobilization plan? None–and that’s the point.”
None? Not our Constitution which puts limits, restraints, and controls on our government?
“Remember that the Democratic Party is now a socialist party–a democratic socialist party. Socialism, according The Basics,
is a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals.”
These people fling around the definition of Socialism like it’s the punctuation to their argument. Mr. LaFerrara you have to actually explain how the GND is going to make the “means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, rather than private individuals”. Nothing in the GND usurps ownership… oh, I forgot. Taxes. That’s it. This is about new taxes.
“Cutting through the collectivist lingo–”the community as a whole” and “run both the economy and society democratically”–this means totalitarian control by government.”
That escalated quickly. Weird attempt to elicit an emotional response in the reader. Except you kind of need to demonstrate how you get from Point A to Point B
“In order to understand what this is really all about, we must take a brief look back.”
Right, go on…
“As thinkers such as Ayn Rand (P. 270) and Stephen Hicks (C. 5) have observed…”
Oh, look back into your bubble. “Thinkers”.
“Marxist predictions that capitalism would lead to the few getting rich at the expense of impoverishing the many turned out to be 180º wrong: The growth of industrial fortunes was accompanied by a rising general standard of living, including the emergence of a vast prosperous middle class.”
Hard to believe when we’re inundated with articles like this from financial news services: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-been-almost-a-100-years-since-the-americas-1-had-so-much-wealth-2019-02-11
“”Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war,” she asserts. Climate science, Klein claims, has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.”
I think rivers catching fire in the ’70’s helped in that regard.
“Socialism is totalitarian, by design and in practice.”
Show, Don’t tell.
“Climate is so all-encompassing that there is virtually nothing that humans can do, short of reverting to a pre-fire, pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer Stone Age existence, that does not contribute in some way, directly or indirectly, to climate change.”
Slippery-slope hyperbole. There have been many, many ideas thrown out into the public sphere on how to deal with climate change and not a single one advocates humanity return to a hunter-gather lifestyle.
“Not just any energy. Reliable, economical, mass-scale energy.”
So short-sighted and I’m tired of this type of argument. Coal and Oil weren’t always economical. The infrastructure didn’t build itself. The technology didn’t spring fully formed from the ether when energy sources during the industrial revolution were being explored.
“The American government must orchestrate a “10-year national mobilization [to] transform the U.S. economy to combat climate change,” according to the Green New Deal. Such utopian dreams are the stuff of which totalitarian dictatorships are made, because such sweeping reorganizations of the lives of 350 million–or 7 billion–human beings can only be “achieved” from the top down.”
Oooo. Scary. Scared old man is scared of change, News at 11. The thing he cited isn’t a utopian dream. Or, if it is, it’s the most boring Utopia and a hell of a thing to resist. And things get “achieved” from the top down because the top is where the freaking resources are. Rugged individualism isn’t going to build a levy to keep the Atlantic Ocean from swallowing half of Florida.
“I have no doubt that the new Democratic Socialists are salivating over the chance to force these draconian changes on the American people.”
No doubt, huh? “Democratic Socialists” must be cartoon villains in this man’s world. Salivating?
“But I don’t believe it’s to stop climate change. OAC and her ilk couldn’t care less about the weather.”
Because it’s about the climate, not the weather.
“It is the means to an end–a socialist America.”
Someone really should break the news to him…
As is common among conspiracy theorists and libertarians (but I repeat myself), he begins with a claim, carries it out to its wildest possible conclusion, and decides that said conclusion is the True Goal of the conspirators. “This could be bad” quickly becomes “THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL!”
Now allow me to sort of defend him a bit.
“None? Not our Constitution which puts limits, restraints, and controls on our government?”
I believe his argument is that a worldwide catastrophe would naturally lead to a suspension of the usual rules. Why care about a constitution if it gets in the way of saving civilization itself? Furthermore, since he believes that this problem (if it is a problem) is pretty much impossible to solve, he concludes that the inevitable erosion of rights and freedom to combat it would be steady and permanent. It is the consequence (and perhaps intent) of endless crisis.
Indeed, liberals made a similar argument in response to the call for emergency and executive powers in the face of “great threats” during the Bush years. And here we are with threats that never seem to end and powers that never seem to go away even when some of the threats do. It’s all the easier to do when the problem is globally catastrophic and requires far greater, perhaps even endless, effort to solve.
“Nothing in the GND usurps ownership… oh, I forgot. Taxes. That’s it. This is about new taxes.”
And higher taxes along with stricter regulations means (1) more power for the government and (2) less power and freedom for the public. We don’t have to agree that this is always bad, but it’s OK to admit that it’s true.
He and other libertarians do a miserable job of associating Democrats with the socialism definition that they love to present. Raising taxes and getting involved in the economy hardly constitute government seizure of the “means of production, distribution, and exchange” and your average Democrat wouldn’t want that anyway. However, the power to tax and regulate is the power to *effectively* control said means–potentially. They fear that the potential will become the actual when our government finds the right issue or argument to convince the public that such a power grab is acceptable, e.g. climate change. In the absence of that, the seizure of power will simply be incremental.
Their beliefs are grounded in a mixture of accurate observations (real examples of government accumulation of power), disdain for the average person (too stupid; gladly trades away freedom for false security; hence “sheeple” accusations and pride in being a “rugged individual”), and fear of the worst (paranoia). It’s the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy theories.