Someone Tell the New York Times: ‘Extremism’ in Defense of Survival Is No Vice
“You’re dueling on the ring of a volcano, and I don’t think we should be willing to gamble like that.”
The above quote comes from Matt Bennett, executive director for public affairs at the centrist-Democratic think tank Third Way, in the latest episode of The New York Times’ new television show, The Weekly.
The topic of this particular episode is the politics of climate change, and so one might be forgiven for assuming that Bennett is arguing against paralysis in the face of looming climate catastrophe.
Except, the “volcano” to which Bennett refers is not the end of life as we know it on Planet Earth. Rather, Bennett’s “volcano” is the re-election of President Donald Trump.
Bennett’s not arguing that we should stop bickering and finally take seriously the challenge of global climate change. Instead, he’s suggesting that those who agree with the scientific consensus ought to cool their heels and stop proposing “drastic” solutions to a drastic problem, for fear that the hard work of saving the planet might scare off centrist voters in the 2020 presidential election.
Thus is the theme of the eighth episode of The Weekly, the video spinoff of the Times’ popular podcast/radio program The Daily. The Weekly airs Sundays at 10 p.m. on FX. Episodes can be streamed the following day on Hulu.
This particular episode traces the rise of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led advocacy group most well known for not taking “no” for an answer in a confrontation with California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (full video below).
Noting the confrontational tactics and rapid growth of the Sunrise Movement, and the sweeping nature of proposals that have been packaged into the “Green New Deal,” The Weekly asks whether ambitious climate change proposals by the “Hard Left” of the Democratic Party might cost Democrats the 2020 presidential election.
Taking a step back, we see that the episode is based on three premises: 1) that trusting science and making bold attempts to avoid a climate disaster constitutes a “far left” position; 2) that many moderate voters won’t vote for any candidate who has endorsed “far left” positions; and 3) that all issues are of the same value.
Each of these premises is arguable, at best, and the last one is particularly troubling. Let’s unpack each of them, one by one.
Premise 1: Being Green Is a ‘Far-Left’ Idea
It certainly is the case that in the United States and abroad, Green parties have been associated with the left end of the spectrum. This generally is due not so much to advocacy for climate-friendly initiatives as to the parties’ support for social programs that broadly align with liberal policy approaches.
In addition, as the Weekly episode explores, the Green New Deal specifically includes progressive policy proposals such as universal healthcare, the elimination of tuition at public colleges and universities, and a federal jobs guarantee.
Rihana Gunn-Wright, a co-author of the Green New Deal and the policy director at the think tank New Consensus, tells The Weekly’s Astead W. Herndon that those social issues are important because the impact of climate change won’t unfold equally across the world’s population; it will first hurt the people who are already most vulnerable.
“If we don’t get this right we will have a climate that is way less livable than we had. And people will die,” Gunn-Wright says. “…Yes it will kill us all but it will kill some people first and I need you to give a ****.”
The Weekly — or Hulu, at least — chose to mute the last word of Gunn-Wright’s sentence, but you can probably guess what it is.
I know plenty of people who would argue with the notion that ensuring their family and friends have access to healthcare, an education, and work is inherently a “far left” position. However, The Times is not unique in adopting that premise — it has become conventional wisdom among the Church of the Savvy. I also know plenty of conservatives who would be offended at the idea that caring for the environment is something only liberals do. We’ll leave that argument for another day, but for the sake of this column, let’s give The Times a qualified benefit of the doubt and say that, at least as it is currently constructed, the Green New Deal includes policy proposals which the Washington establishment would consider “far to the left.”
Premise 2: Moderates Won’t Vote for Candidates with ‘Far Left’ Positions
If, for argument’s sake, we accept The Times’ premise that taking an approach to climate change that is commensurate with the scope of the challenge is a “far left” idea, then we must confront Bennett’s notion that being associated with the far left would be toxic for a Democratic nominee.
Here, too, we face a situation where there is clear “conventional wisdom,” but history itself is less clear. If we look at the Republican Party since the dawn of the Tea Party in 2010, we see that the first election of the Tea Party era saw Republicans take back control of the House. Four years later, the GOP took the Senate, too, thanks in part to victories by very conservative candidates like Joni Ernst (Iowa), and Tom Cotton (Arkansas). Moreover, the 2016 election saw the election of a presidential candidate whose views on immigration were far to the right of the general public. At least on the Republican side, it’s difficult to conclude that the key to victory is centrism; recent history supports the opposite.
The pundit class has lately suggested that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her progressive peers represent the rise of a Democratic version of the Tea Party. However, those same pundits seem to believe that, unlike the Tea Party, an uprising of “extreme” politicians on the left would prove harmful for Democrats. It’s difficult to know for sure, because it’s been a while since the Democrats had a progressive wing robust enough to force such a reckoning.
One other note that warrants insertion here. No one would argue that American politics is exactly like politics overseas. However, insofar as the rise of Trump has coincided with the rises of Brexit and Boris Johnson in the UK and the near-rises of Geert Wilders (The Netherlands) and Marine Le Pen (France), there does seem to be significant similarities between the mood of the American electorate and the moods of European electorates. But in Europe, the current political upheaval has been marked not so much by a rise in far-right parties as it has been marked by a collapse of the centrist parties.
Perhaps it is true that the American electorate is unique among Western nations in its desire for centrism amid the rise of populism. But it’s also possible that in America, just as in Europe, the people will favor parties seen as bold as opposed to parties seen as safe.
Premise 3: All Issues Are the Same
Now, though, we must address the issue that I find most troubling: the notion that all issues are of essentially the same value, and that therefore “left,” “right,” and “center” positions are all equally justifiable no matter the issue.
This, of course, is nonsense.
If one party were to propose an aggressive federal tax on millionaires, and the other party were to propose a further reduction of taxes on millionaires, one could reasonably argue that the most prudent approach, perhaps even the best approach, would be to find some point of compromise in the middle.
However, when dealing with other issues, such as Civil Rights, we know that middle-of-the-road compromises are not only unworkable but also clearly immoral. The “separate but equal” world of Jim Crow might have been a “middle ground” between slavery and freedom for African-Americans, but it was morally reprehensible and led to painful social and economic consequences from which our nation continues to suffer today.
When it comes to climate change, either the scientific consensus is correct or it is not. If the scientists are correct, and if their timelines are even remotely accurate, then the traditional political spectrum of “left” and “right” is moot. If we’re careening toward disaster, the operative spectrum is the span from “minimizing the catastrophe” to “doing nothing.”
That’s why it was so odd to see The Times use climate change as the prism through which to ask the question of whether a true progressive can win the presidency. In doing so, the Times assumes that the “middle” — in this case, doing something, but not enough to stop climate change — is automatically reasonable. Such compromise might be reasonable for taxes, but it’s a decidely unreasonable response to climate change.
If the premise behind the idea that Democrats need to pick a moderate presidential nominee is that only “reasonable” candidates can win, then the Democrats ought to choose the candidate with the most aggressive climate change policy. When staring down an avoidable disaster, the only reasonable choice is to try to stop it. Unless, of course, the Times believes the “reasonable” thing is to assume the scientific community is mostly wrong.
The Big Picture
Of late, the media has been wrestling with whether and how to call a lie “a lie” and racism “racism.” A growing number of editors and reporters have decided to err on the side of being frank. So, too, with climate change, most news reports that mention skeptics of climate change also make it clear that the vast majority of scientists believe climate change is real and already underway.
If, though, the media is so laser-focused on asserting the reliability of the science, why should the Times act as if the logical response to climate change is de facto extreme, or even de facto liberal? If the science is true and the science says humans are rapidly destroying the planet, then aggressive solutions aren’t unreasonable or out of the mainstream, they’re the only logical and the only moral response.
Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP nominee for president, once famously said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” Why can’t the Times and the rest of the pundit class wrap their minds around the idea that “extremism” in defense of survival is no vice?
