There is much running commentary on the insanity displayed by the rising Democrat star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but I want to jump in on an example that illustrates nicely what I have said on this blog about liberals increasingly distancing themselves from reality itself, meanwhile adopting viewpoints which, if taken to their logical conclusion, would require in their implementation in the real world, the brutal and bloody crushing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans.
I came across it again more recently in this article in the New Republic which gushes admirably about a Climate Change activist (working for the Sunrise Movement) sandbagging a Fox News reporter. I haven’t watched the video to verify the quote, but see no reason to suspect NR would get this part wrong, and besides, the guy doesn’t seem to object to the characterization:
I was definitely surprised. Like when Piro asked “How are we going to pay for it?” and you immediately said “How did we pay for World War II?” I was like, “Oh, snap.” Why did you choose that comparison?
Two reasons. One is that I have a degree in history. Two, more importantly, is that I think that’s the most helpful analogy for the Green New Deal, right? That’s why they call it the Green New Deal. Because once upon a time in America, we were facing a huge problem, and the government made a massive investment to employ tons of people. So I think that analogy is inherently baked into the Green New Deal, and I think people intuitively understand it.
Well, apparently degrees in history are now being given out to people who have no knowledge of history. More charitably, we can at least say that the dude, Jack Vandeleuv, exhibits a complete inability to think rationally even about the things he does think he knows. If WWII is the most ‘helpful analogy’ they have, they are in sorry, sorry shape. If you knew anything about World War II, you would know that.
Although Vandeleuv almost certainly has aspirations for political power, let’s not forget that Ocasio-Cortez (henceforth AoC) is making the same argument. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since, as the NR itself documents (linked off of the very same interview with Vandeleuv), AoC owes a great deal to the Sunrise Movement.
[I will be writing another post sometime about the Sunrise Movement (no surprise that the Sunrise Movement itself credits Saul Alinsky as part of its ideological context) and comparing it to this recent utterly biased hit piece by the USA Today. Suffice it to say, if ‘conservatives’ agitate ‘covertly’ to enact legislation they desire, they are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. If liberals do it, the New Republic will gush about it.]
Anyway, my contention is that the further away people get from the real world, the more dangerous they become. AoC has proposed what she calls the ‘Green New Deal,’ which she says needs to be enacted TODAY or else PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE; nay PEOPLE ARE DYING.
This is the same woman that thinks the world is going to end in twelve years telling you that the climate crisis is SCIENCE!, so bear that in mind. Bear in mind that she believes she is only reflecting the views of the experts, which is probably true. Muddled thinking by lunatics appears to be par for the course when it comes to ‘climate change.’
The GND is calculated to cost more than 100 trillion dollars. AoC and her ilk have been careful not to do something that would require determining a more precise cost, so its a bit ambiguous. Every new legislation has to be put past the CBO to determine the cost. Since AoC has not brought forward actual legislation, she has avoided having to answer to the ungodly number her GND would cost, put forth by a theoretically non-partisan government entity tasked with precisely such jobs.
However, you can piece it together pretty well by looking at all of the things that the GND calls for and using the estimates already generated for those things, and just tally them up. This article does it well.
If you want another clue just how radically out of touch with the real world AoC is, consider the cost of “upgrading every single building in the U.S. to make them energy efficient, or moving the U.S. within 10 years from 17 percent renewable energy to 100 percent.” EVERY. SINGLE. BUILDING.
But back to the WWII analogy.
Now, if I was really interested in historical analysis, and not merely engaged in propaganda, like Vandeleuv, I would be interested to know just how much WWII cost before I began listing it as my ‘best example.’ I would want to be cognizant of just what happened in WWII, and what that suggests they think ought to happen with the GND (eg, the draft, rationing, etc). I doubt very much Vandeleuv or AoC have ever given any of that half a thought, since its far more likely that the WWII analogy is a rhetorical tool to use on the ignorant rather than any serious argument for her position. AoC herself has distanced herself from facts as a baseline for understanding the world, stating that it is more important to be ‘morally right.’
I did some hunting around for the costs of World War II and finally settled on this document, since it appears to be immune from accusations of partisan bias. In 2011 dollars, World War II cost 4.1 Trillion dollars. At its peak, its share of the GDP was 35.8%.
In 1944, the US government took 94% of every dollar made above $200,000. “That’s a high tax rate.” lol
Ok, so WWII cost, in today’s dollars, roughly speaking, 4.1 trillion dollars, and consumed 1 out of 3 dollars the United States generated.
The Green New Deal would cost more than 100 trillion dollars.
Without having specific legislation and therefore an explicit CBO report and cowardly refusals to attach real numbers by the GND advocates, we’re just going to have to wing it with that conservative estimate.
Now, how much does the Federal government collect right now in taxes?
AoC probably needs a little help with math, so let me give it: 100 trillion is 5 times the amount that the entire country of the United States makes in a year.
Since apparently we only have a 10 year window before we all die, these measures would have to be inflicted upon us all within that time frame or else its ‘too late.’ Probably, on their ‘reasoning,’ it would have to be done within the next 2-5 years, which would entail taking EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN MAKES, but let’s just use 10 to be conservative and pretend to be ‘rational’ like them.
Doing so means that the annual tax burden would have to be nearly tripled. WWII took 1/3 of the US income. The GND would take 1/2 of it, alone.
As it stands right now, the US goes a trillion dollars in debt each year, and that is even with collecting 3.6 trillion dollars on a budget of 4.5 trillion. (The national debt stands at about 22 trillion dollars, not including all of the unfunded mandates, etc, which bring the total well over 100 trillion, already.)
They can’t even fund the government fully now. Add the current budget to the costs of the GND, and you are talking about taking 15 trillion dollars–taking 3/4 of the GDP.
If the thing can’t be done now, with a budget of about 4.5 trillion, what makes one think it could be done with a budget of 14.5 trillion? It can’t. It can’t be done.
Unless you start shooting people who refuse to comply.
And America is not Europe. It will not comply.
You will have to shoot a great many Americans in order to enact the GND. Seeing as AoC has already put population control on the table, perhaps the idea of slaughtering millions of her fellow Americans will not strike her as a bad idea.
No doubt, neither AoC nor Vandeleuv have attempted to square what they are saying must happen to prevent us all from DYING IN TEN YEARS with the absolute reality that they will NEVER win peaceable support for their proposals. We hope. But then, fellow Democrats are already suggesting we nuke gun owners if they don’t give up their guns, so I could be wrong.
The similarities to 1910 era socialists, communists, and Bolsheviks strikes me as uncanny. All of their great utopian dreams are at their fingertips! If only everyone goes along with it, it will be swell! We must go forward with it, or else the Workers will perish after a fortnight! Yadda, yadda, yadda, lots of people, ‘workers’ included, don’t want to go along with it at all. What to do, what to do? Guess there is nothing else to do but to murder tens of millions of people. So sad, but it was for the greater good!
We should briefly mention that one of the other realities the Communists discovered that was in enacting their utopian schemes, they dramatically broke their system. The money and resources they thought they could count on, and which they took as their baseline for scheming, dwindled and dried up after they enacted their policies. AoC and her ilk imagine that we can ‘afford’ paying 75% of our collective income to the Federal government and everything will just be oh, so, perfect! But, there is a reason why the US has an annual GDP of 20 trillion dollars, kicking the tail off of the rest of the globe, despite being just 4.5% of the world population. AoC (and Sanders, etc, etc,) get their way, they will kill the golden goose. And then what?
I have been proceeding on the basis that it is self-evidently absurd that ‘the world is going to end in 12 years,’ but given the fact that this viewpoint has many adherents, and many liberals agree with AoC that the GND is entirely affordable, I need to address this part of the equation, as well.
Here, we must raise an important question: if the problem is, as they say, the ‘end of the world,’ due to ‘climate change,’ then shouldn’t it follow that the focus be on measures which are orientated towards that? The 100% upgrading of 100% of the structures in the United States and the elimination of ‘farting cows’ ostensibly will ‘save the earth,’ but whence comes the other parts of the ‘new deal’?
- counteracting systemic injustices
- creating “millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States”
- securing “access to nature”
- promoting justice and equity
- supporting family farming
- guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
- strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
- And so on.
The inclusion of these measures is actually one of the best indicators that there is no ‘climate crisis’ and even probably that ‘climate change’ is not really a concern, if it is real at all. For, if you really thought the world was going to end in 12 years, you wouldn’t trifle yourself with giving ‘all people of the United States’ paid vacations or get distracted by whether or not people are able to unionize. You would focus, like a laser beam, on the problem.
You know, like the United States did in World War II, when it focused, like a laser beam, on utterly annihilating the Axis powers. Forced conscription, harsh rationing, nuking cities, putting American citizens into concentration camps (thanks, FDR! — A Democrat.), and so on.
It is not too terribly difficult to figure out what “providing all people of the United States” with every social program liberals have ever conceived of has to do with ‘climate change’ if you read enough of their writings, in their own words. It is not SCIENCE, it is STATISM. ‘Science’ is just a pretext. Invoking it is just a tactic. It is meant to achieve political goals which it has otherwise been unable to achieve.
To say that something is ‘scientifically’ demonstrable ought to mean something… it ought to be actually demonstrable. The evidence for it ought to be plain and straight forward. It ought to be repeatable and empirically testable. And by all means, it ought to be falsifiable.
Whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, etc, etc, etc, every phenomena is said to support the contention that climate change is a real problem. There is literally nothing that happens that can disprove it. No, everything that happens proves it! This, after almost 50 years of predicting that the earth was going to die in the next few years and having those predictions completely fail. That’s SCIENCE!
With World War II, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was far more certain than the claim that the earth’s temperature has risen, let alone that it has risen in a way that is cause for alarm. The invasion of France by Germany was undeniable even to the most hard-headed skeptics; certainly, those in France were fully convinced.
But, if AoC lived in World War II and was as irrational then as she is now, she might argue that not only has Japan and Germany invaded most of the globe, but they had already conquered the United States! Unless we act radically, now, we’ll not be able to throw off our oppressors!
AoC: “German tanks are outside Chicago, as we speak!”
Chicago resident steps outside, looks about, talks to friends, etc, etc, no one sees any evidence whatsoever that German tanks are anywhere in America, let alone Chicago, so he tells her that.
AoC: “The fact that you can’t see the tanks proves that they’ve already taken over!”
This, they call SCIENCE.
Whatever the evidence may or may be for ‘climate change’ there is nothing to suggest that it poses the kind of existential threat that Germany posed to Britain or Japan posed to the Pacific rim. Those things nobody calls ‘science,’ but nobody thought they were remotely deniable, either. People are indeed prepared to rise to address threats, making due sacrifices as needed, and even setting aside some of their liberties and freedoms to do so. Even non-Statists like myself are willing to throw their backs into overcoming those threats.
Those who argue that we ought to be alarmed by ‘climate change’ have nothing even close to offer like that. Every person alive can walk out their door and experience a climate that is pretty much exactly the way the climate was ten years ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago. Its like the Chicago resident told that German tanks are at his door. He needs only step outside on his porch to see that they aren’t there. The only ones who see concern are Statists; methinks that’s not a coincidence.
We are left wrestling with the very real possibility that AoC and her ilk are on the cusp of becoming the world’s next batch of mass murderers. If they really believe that the end of the world is imminent unless the world is put on a ‘war footing,’ and people do not go along with their plans (which is 100% likely, at least in the United States), then their next move is as plainly obvious as it was obvious to the Bolsheviks and other communists when people wouldn’t go along with their plans.
Does she really believe it? Does Vandeleuv? Are they like the folks described by Joseph Gutheinz in his review of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, which he called “a cheap thrill ride, which many weak-minded people will jump on and stay on for the rest of their lives”? (That movie was in 2004; it is 2019, and we are still here, and the earth and its climate is for all intents and purposes no different now than it was then.)
If so, weak-minded or not, they will join the ranks of others who also were worried about “the future elimination of humankind.” The eugenicists, leap to mind. The over-population folks, such as Paul Ehrlich, who in 1969 wrote,
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent [yadda yadda yadda]. Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.
Now, there is a man who understands the logical implications of his arguments: compulsion, if voluntary methods fail.
If AoC and her ilk are true believers, and conclude that voluntary methods have failed, will they remain true believers, and press ahead with their logic? If the unreality of their views on ‘climate’ run aground on the reality that their views are not at all as demonstrable as the ‘facts’ of German guns and Japanese bombs and so cannot win support, will they rethink their views on ‘climate’?
People did not have to be persuaded into believing that other people wanted to kill them or cajoled into accepting the price of fighting back. If it is so hard to persuade people about climate change that you have to ‘cajole’ them, maybe the problem is their views on climate change, and not the people who don’t go along. Seems like a reasonable thought to me. And, if in 12 years (per the UN’s latest dire predictions) we are just as we were before Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” or even before the first Earth Day, will she and they wonder if perhaps they are entirely wrong?
Seeing as liberal progressives never admit that they are wrong and never say they are sorry, but always find yet another pretext for justifying their social programs, which are disturbingly Marxist in nature, if not outright communistic, I am afraid to say it is not bloody likely. Emphasis, I’m afraid to say, on ‘bloody.’ That makes AoC and her ilk the next possible incarnation of the most dangerous people on the planet: the bad people who actually think they are good.
It would be nice if we could laugh them off as the ‘Green New Dummies.’ Unfortunately, it might be the case that the ‘D’ in GND stands neither for ‘deal’ or ‘dummies,’ but rather danger.