Close this search box.

Analysis: ‘Green New Deal has always rested on deception’ – ‘Like a dictator declaring a bogus ‘state of emergency’ to grant him extraordinary powers’

[Background info here: AOC’s Chief-Of-Staff Admits Green New Deal About Implementing Socialism – ‘It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all’ – It’s a ‘change-the-entire-economy thing’]


AOC’s Chief Of Staff: We Don’t Think Of The Green New Deal As A Climate Thing But As A “Change The Entire Economy” Thing

He tried to downplay the buzz about his admission last night on Twitter, noting that the Green New Deal is itself quite plain about its intentions. Which is sort of true and sort of not:

Becket Adams of DC Examiner comments:  That is a nice attempt at spin by Chakrabarti, but I am not sure anyone is stupid enough to buy it. The Green New Deal resolution does indeed call for a multitrillion-dollar restructuring of the U.S. economy. It is a wish list of preposterously ambitious initiatives, including one that would upgrade or replace all existing buildings in the U.S. “to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
But Chakrabarti is lying when he says his team has always been upfront about the proposal being first and foremost a “how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” From day one, Ocasio-Cortez and the measure’s Democratic Senate sponsor, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, have sold this stupid resolution as an emergency measure meant to address the world’s most pressing crisis: Climate change. That the Green New Deal also addresses jobs and the economy has been sold to voters as being secondary to the primary issue of saving the environment. So, yes, the resolution has always called for an overhaul of the economy. But, no, they never admitted that this had been the chief focus all along, and that climate change was just an excuse for socialism.
Unquestionably, the GND left no doubt that a wholesale reorganization of the U.S. economy would be needed to achieve its goals. $93 trillion, remember? But Becket Adams is right that Chakrabarti’s being far too cute about cause and effect here. To borrow the left’s favorite analogy for climate change, there’s a world of difference between saying that fighting a world war requires total mobilization of the economy in ways previously unheard of and that we should we fight a world war because we want to mobilize the economy in ways unheard of. The left usually has no difficulty seeing why war under false and mercenary pretenses is morally abhorrent. Yet here’s Chakrabarti seeming to admit that socializing much of the U.S. economy isn’t a necessary side effect of cooling the global climate. It’s the point. It’s the goal. Through that lens, the bleating about a climate crisis looks like a dictator declaring a bogus “state of emergency” because he knows that the decree will grant him extraordinary powers to punish his enemies and reshape society according to his vision.

If you were inclined to see a shred of good faith in the Green New Deal before reading Chakrabarti’s quote, that’s gone now. Philip Klein thinks that, to the extent the GND ever had a prayer of winning over skeptics, that’s gone now too:

The Green New Deal has always rested on deception. Ocasio-Cortez and her backers have argued that we are facing catastrophic emergency and that if we don’t act immediately the looming devastation will be unavoidable. But at the same time, the plan is a wish list of ideas that American socialists would be pushing regardless of the climate issue, and they are in no way necessary to address the global emergency: free college, more union jobs, free healthcare for all, economic security, and “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.”…

What’s fueled climate change skepticism — or denialism, as liberals would put it — is the belief that liberals are just using it as an excuse to implement their economic agenda. Chakrabarti has provided critics with more ammunition to say, “See, we told you so.”

We did tell ’em so. I wonder what Chakrabarti’s next big revelation about the progressive M.O. will be. Might it be that … many accusations of racism by politicians are made in bad faith, to wound political enemies for unrelated reasons?