For decades, the GOP has responded to every disaster with a creed that I have called the “shock doctrine”. When a disaster strikes, people are scared and dislocated. They focus on dealing with emergencies of daily living, like boiling snow for drinking water. They have less time to get involved in politics and fewer opportunities to protect their rights. […]
Big shocks – natural disasters, economic collapse, terrorist attacks – become ideal moments for smuggling unpopular market policy that tends to enrich elites at the expense of everyone else. The bottom line is that the shock doctrine isn’t about releasing the underlying drivers of crises: it’s about exploiting those crises to sift through your wish-list, even if it aggravates the crisis. […]
Mr Abbott railed against a political plan that currently exists mainly on paper. In a crisis, ideas are important – he knows that. He also knows that the Green New Deal, which promises to create millions of union jobs that build shock-resistant infrastructure for green energy, transit and affordable housing, is extremely attractive. This is especially true now with so many Texans suffering from the overlapping crises of unemployment, homelessness, racial injustice, crumbling public services, and extreme weather. […]
THREE OTHER ARTICLES WORDREAD H
BEST COMMENTS • SAVED DIARIES
TWEET OF THE DAY
It’s -454F degrees in space and the solar panels on the International Space Station are working fine. Nasa has been using the Green New Deal for 23 years.
– Scott Huffman (@HuffmanForNC) February 21, 2021
“Good can be radical; Evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, because it has neither depth nor a demonic dimension – and this is its horror – it can spread like a mushroom over the surface of the earth and devastate the whole world. Evil comes from a failure to think. “
~~ Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1961)
BLAST FROM THE PAST
That day at Daily Kos in 2004– The McCain Feingold legacy:
Campaign Funding Reform. It was the ultimate political paradox. While the Republicans had a three-fold advantage in collecting donations from hard dollar donations, the Democrats had parity on unregulated soft dollar donations.
Still, the Democrats voted in favor, caught between their support for good government and their addiction to soft dollars. In the meantime, the GOP, which apparently had the most to win, fought it out with all their might.
Now the big Ds (DNC, DCCC and DSCC) are faced with enormous money differences compared to their cash flush GOP counterparts. Bush will have two to three times as much money as our Democratic candidate. By winning and promoting good government, the Democrats lost, right?