In regards to the spiel or framing the narrative 'only' about "... our effort to move older people into 'progressive' organizing."
Does the Third Act 'progressive' Big Tent have a door at the rear of the tent for older centrist democrats and other older persons interested in fighting for Climate Justice? Or, must we jump on the 'progressive' wagon?
This was my comment on an earlier The Crucial Years article.
TRUMPISM IS COMING BACK - THAT'S BAD FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE
I count myself as a Centrist / Moderate Democrat and cheer for like minded people and political candidates who can help to move us along a path toward Climate Justice and ending manmade Global Warming.
One of my friends, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, got his head handed to him last night in Virginia. Biden won Virginia over Trump by about 10 points in 2020. Last night McAuliffe lost by 2 points to the Trump supported Republican candidate Younkin.
In my book, McAuliffe lost by 12 points .... mainly Swing / Independent Voters and non loyal Democratic Voters.
These 12 points don't bode well for Democrats in 2022 nor in 2024 when Trump could likely be the Republican Presidential candidate or somebody he supports like DeSantis .... and that's a hell on earth scenario for Climate Justice ... specially if the Republicans also control the House and Senate.
I believe the younger and more vocal Green New Deal Elected Progressives in Office (and their supporters) need to garner more Third Act level wisdom and think better along the lines of just not winning a battle occasionally .... but alot more strategically about winning the war.
That's going to take some serious leadership, serious strategy and coalitions that can bring Climate Justice Centrist Democrats aboard along with Climate Justice Republicans.
If the two big bills in Congress 'had been passed', Terry McAuliffe 'would have won'. Plus, Biden would have done much better on the Glasgow world stage which has been described here as "Mostly Banal".
I personally know that McAuliffe did not throw his hat in the Democratic Presidential Arena in 2020 because he thought that Biden had that Democratic Center lane and could deliver a "Good New Deal" for the people of America.
It's just not me saying this about the "why" of the McAuliffe loss,, but it is also the assessment of other respected and experienced individuals as noted below.
I hope those here can join in by saying we can learn from failures and can persevere on the path toward Climate Justice.
"Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia told CNN that Democrats’ inability to approve the infrastructure bill and give McAuliffe a talking point on the campaign trail contributed to his defeat."
“I think it was on the shoulders of Democrats here who have the majority,” he said. “People had a lot of hope for Joe Biden and the Joe Biden agenda, but Democrats didn’t want to give Biden a win,” he said.
McAuliffe might have squeaked through the narrowest of wins if the infrastructure bills had passed, but frankly there are 2 superseding issues: 1) the Democrats have failed (progressive and centrist) to clearly define the stakes of the political moment. This should have been a daily drum beat from Day 1 of Biden's term...explaining clearly the impact of authoritarian rule. Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Kaine have all played down the stakes, which has allowed the media to normalize Trumpism. Biden ran on the promise to save the soul of America, yet he's squandered his political capital on a botched exit from Afghanistan and infrastructure bills that are meaningless to most people. There's far more press about what's NOT in the Bill's. 2) McAuliffe's team made the race about Trump, while his opponent focused on the culture wars that Democrats refuse to fight and local issues. This was a mistake, and one that former GOP strategists warned about repeatedly. Why do Democratic candidates refuse to listen to the people who know how to counter the GOP's treachery? If Democratic leadership had any ability to strategize, they would have laid out a 10-year plan to effect systemic changes vs stuffing everything into one bill that's poorly understood. There's been political malpractice up and down the party, and barring divine intervention (ie, Democratic leadership actually listening to their base and the very loose coalition that won the 2020 election), the GOP will have absolute control in 2024, and SCOTUS will stop all environmental protections.
Dear HW, Thanks for your comment. I am really more into Climate Justice than Politics.
The central point of my comment directed toward McKibben is don't label all of us older Americans fighting for Climate Justice like you .... in terms of being a Progressive. Here's what I said and the question I am presenting:
In regards to the spiel or framing the narrative 'only' about "... our effort to move older people into 'progressive' organizing."
Does the Third Act 'progressive' Big Tent have a door at the rear of the tent for older centrist democrats and other older persons interested in fighting for Climate Justice? Or, must we jump on the 'progressive' wagon?
That's fair, thank you. I personally don't view Third Act as progressive, but rather a reasoned response to an immediate, existential threat, but Mr. McKibben may have other thoughts.
Humanity is not prevailing — nor will it ever if left to the markets — over the fossil fuel industry supply and profits and consumer demand for status quo, if one reads the tea leaves in the UK and elsewhere.
Carbon dioxide was discovered in Glasgow by Joseph Black, who worked with James Watt in the 1750s and 1760s at the University of Glasgow to fix the first steam engine, invented in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen that was “in need of repair.”
So, here we are, some 250 years later at COP26 in Glasgow with all the nations of the world attempting to reverse the damage caused by the internal combustion engine and other combustion of natural gas and coal to generate electricity, along with all the uses of gas and oil in other processes. Our carbon budget is measured in years, not decades.
There is one person who is a resident of Glasgow who I know for sure is working along side scientists and engineers around the world to fix the problem of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and to #RemoveCO2 and #RemoveCH4 alongside means to #CoolTheArctic and #RefreezeArctic on an URGENT emergency basis while the global leaders wrestle with their National Determined Contributions (NDCs) struggling to reduce emissions, which will take decades to accomplish.
At what point and by what criteria do we finally decide to change course?
In regards to the spiel or framing the narrative 'only' about "... our effort to move older people into 'progressive' organizing."
Does the Third Act 'progressive' Big Tent have a door at the rear of the tent for older centrist democrats and other older persons interested in fighting for Climate Justice? Or, must we jump on the 'progressive' wagon?
This was my comment on an earlier The Crucial Years article.
TRUMPISM IS COMING BACK - THAT'S BAD FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE
I count myself as a Centrist / Moderate Democrat and cheer for like minded people and political candidates who can help to move us along a path toward Climate Justice and ending manmade Global Warming.
One of my friends, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, got his head handed to him last night in Virginia. Biden won Virginia over Trump by about 10 points in 2020. Last night McAuliffe lost by 2 points to the Trump supported Republican candidate Younkin.
In my book, McAuliffe lost by 12 points .... mainly Swing / Independent Voters and non loyal Democratic Voters.
These 12 points don't bode well for Democrats in 2022 nor in 2024 when Trump could likely be the Republican Presidential candidate or somebody he supports like DeSantis .... and that's a hell on earth scenario for Climate Justice ... specially if the Republicans also control the House and Senate.
I believe the younger and more vocal Green New Deal Elected Progressives in Office (and their supporters) need to garner more Third Act level wisdom and think better along the lines of just not winning a battle occasionally .... but alot more strategically about winning the war.
That's going to take some serious leadership, serious strategy and coalitions that can bring Climate Justice Centrist Democrats aboard along with Climate Justice Republicans.
If the two big bills in Congress 'had been passed', Terry McAuliffe 'would have won'. Plus, Biden would have done much better on the Glasgow world stage which has been described here as "Mostly Banal".
I personally know that McAuliffe did not throw his hat in the Democratic Presidential Arena in 2020 because he thought that Biden had that Democratic Center lane and could deliver a "Good New Deal" for the people of America.
It's just not me saying this about the "why" of the McAuliffe loss,, but it is also the assessment of other respected and experienced individuals as noted below.
I hope those here can join in by saying we can learn from failures and can persevere on the path toward Climate Justice.
"Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia told CNN that Democrats’ inability to approve the infrastructure bill and give McAuliffe a talking point on the campaign trail contributed to his defeat."
“I think it was on the shoulders of Democrats here who have the majority,” he said. “People had a lot of hope for Joe Biden and the Joe Biden agenda, but Democrats didn’t want to give Biden a win,” he said.
See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden/biden-returns-to-sobering-virginia-upset-democrat-battle-in-congress-idUSKBN2HO122
See: https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-start-knifing-each-other-even-before-official-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-defeat
McAuliffe might have squeaked through the narrowest of wins if the infrastructure bills had passed, but frankly there are 2 superseding issues: 1) the Democrats have failed (progressive and centrist) to clearly define the stakes of the political moment. This should have been a daily drum beat from Day 1 of Biden's term...explaining clearly the impact of authoritarian rule. Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Kaine have all played down the stakes, which has allowed the media to normalize Trumpism. Biden ran on the promise to save the soul of America, yet he's squandered his political capital on a botched exit from Afghanistan and infrastructure bills that are meaningless to most people. There's far more press about what's NOT in the Bill's. 2) McAuliffe's team made the race about Trump, while his opponent focused on the culture wars that Democrats refuse to fight and local issues. This was a mistake, and one that former GOP strategists warned about repeatedly. Why do Democratic candidates refuse to listen to the people who know how to counter the GOP's treachery? If Democratic leadership had any ability to strategize, they would have laid out a 10-year plan to effect systemic changes vs stuffing everything into one bill that's poorly understood. There's been political malpractice up and down the party, and barring divine intervention (ie, Democratic leadership actually listening to their base and the very loose coalition that won the 2020 election), the GOP will have absolute control in 2024, and SCOTUS will stop all environmental protections.
Dear HW, Thanks for your comment. I am really more into Climate Justice than Politics.
The central point of my comment directed toward McKibben is don't label all of us older Americans fighting for Climate Justice like you .... in terms of being a Progressive. Here's what I said and the question I am presenting:
In regards to the spiel or framing the narrative 'only' about "... our effort to move older people into 'progressive' organizing."
Does the Third Act 'progressive' Big Tent have a door at the rear of the tent for older centrist democrats and other older persons interested in fighting for Climate Justice? Or, must we jump on the 'progressive' wagon?
That's fair, thank you. I personally don't view Third Act as progressive, but rather a reasoned response to an immediate, existential threat, but Mr. McKibben may have other thoughts.
Humanity is not prevailing — nor will it ever if left to the markets — over the fossil fuel industry supply and profits and consumer demand for status quo, if one reads the tea leaves in the UK and elsewhere.
Carbon dioxide was discovered in Glasgow by Joseph Black, who worked with James Watt in the 1750s and 1760s at the University of Glasgow to fix the first steam engine, invented in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen that was “in need of repair.”
So, here we are, some 250 years later at COP26 in Glasgow with all the nations of the world attempting to reverse the damage caused by the internal combustion engine and other combustion of natural gas and coal to generate electricity, along with all the uses of gas and oil in other processes. Our carbon budget is measured in years, not decades.
There is one person who is a resident of Glasgow who I know for sure is working along side scientists and engineers around the world to fix the problem of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and to #RemoveCO2 and #RemoveCH4 alongside means to #CoolTheArctic and #RefreezeArctic on an URGENT emergency basis while the global leaders wrestle with their National Determined Contributions (NDCs) struggling to reduce emissions, which will take decades to accomplish.
At what point and by what criteria do we finally decide to change course?
Please read and sign the petition if you are so inclined: https://www.change.org/p/john-kerry-tell-world-leaders-at-cop26-to-unite-now-on-a-climate-restoration-action-plan
Birth control will never be enough.
Gotta have Death control, too. Stop making
flu, MMR, & Covid shots, to shorten the average
life span by a few years. Negative Population
Growth, because we didn't listen to the scientists
50 years ago calling for ZPG. Nowhere else in
Nature does a population keep increasing
indefinitely without a crash! The Laws of Nature
supersede & overrule the Human Laws!