From a reactionary tabloid, to be sure, but the blurring of cleavages between the official ideologies is always more interesting than reiterations of the old lines between them.
President Trump's reelection campaign is feeling pressure on the issue of climate change. It plans to adopt pro-environment messaging to win key states such as Florida and appease important voter demographics that are moving toward Democrats.
The campaign is responding to consistent polling that shows young people and suburban swing voters are increasingly concerned about climate change and its effects on extreme weather.
The article is extremely bereft of details, but I can actually see this emerging on the fringe-right in coming years (it will never be a mainstream plank) in the form of a kind of eco-fascism lite.
All theories (bourgeois, fascist, Stalinist, Labourite, left-wing, or far-leftist) which somehow glorify and praise the proletariat as it is and claim for it the positive role of defending values and regenerating society, are anti-revolutionary.
It's well established that Trump will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear, then the next day say the exact opposite to a different audience. I'm not even sure the word "lying" is the correct one because lying implies the speaker is aware they are speaking an untruth. I'm not sure that that is what Trump is doing so much as just trying to get cheers.
It's also going to be hard as fuck to go from "more coal!" and "roll back environmental controls!" to "climate change needs action". There are people on the far right who are arguing about whether climate change is due to human actions or is just natural climate variation, but at least those folks are acknowledging that climate change is, in fact, happening (really, it's getting hard to deny at this point - the sand folks are trying to stick their heads into is notably warmer than in the past). Trump doesn't even do that - he's in complete denial about it.
That, combined with a total lack of details in the article summary (the article being behind a paywall - really, a nice communist boy like you linking to such an obviously capitalist company?) I say it's bullshit, on the same level as clickbait, until you can bring something with actual details as to how the "Trump campaign" is going to attempt some sort of eco-awareness in the upcoming 2020 campaign.
And, finally, the current circus going on in Washington DC regarding Trump's actions and whether or not they are impeachable or basis of his removal makes it clear that regardless of what those around Trump want to do or try to do Trump is going to just go on and do whatever the fuck he wants without regard to consequences.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
really, a nice communist boy like you linking to such an obviously capitalist company?
I also have a subscription to The Economist. It always helps to know what the enemy is thinking.
It's also going to be hard as fuck to go from "more coal!" and "roll back environmental controls!" to "climate change needs action".
Oh, I don't know. There are arguments being advanced on the ultraright that environmentalism ought to be taken more seriously - and these arguments typically site things like the unintended environmental damage caused by the "invading hordes" of immigrants trekking through the pristine wasteland of the border areas. Which is true, so farvas it goes, but of course it follows that the source of the problem are the inequities driving mass disorganized movements.
All theories (bourgeois, fascist, Stalinist, Labourite, left-wing, or far-leftist) which somehow glorify and praise the proletariat as it is and claim for it the positive role of defending values and regenerating society, are anti-revolutionary.
Proletarian wrote: ↑2019-11-08 07:28am
I also have a subscription to The Economist. It always helps to know what the enemy is thinking.
I do as well, for essentially the same reason (although the Economist does also have the extra benefit of being one of the few Western publications with good international political coverage, and outside of their arch-capitalist perspective they due tend to have fairly reasonable positions on certain social issues).
On a complete sidenote, many many many years ago I actually worked as an intern at the Washington Examiner. Back during the brief phase of my life where I wanted to be a journalist. And it was working at the Washington Examiner that opened my eyes to how pathetic the American journalism community so often is, and how much of it is just a circle-jerk of self-important fools kissing up to famous people. Granted, my experience may have been better working at a more prestigious publication, but seeing the world of journalism from that side was pretty jading.
I'd report that for vendetta if I could be arsed.
---
Eco-fascism is something being taken seiously enough in the UK a recent Countryfile episode dedicated a section to spotting someone being recruited, the sort of things they might say and how to help them get out of it. Countryfile is the farmer's program, and is normally as dull as ditchwater conservation methods.
Countryfile has exposed an environmental campaign group who have been targeting young people in the countryside on tonight’s edition of the show. It’s believed “British Revival” was set up as a “patriotic” alternative Extinction Rebellion. However, the leader of the group is Michael Wrenn, the former South West regional head of Generation Identity - a far-right extremist organisation.
Edit. of course, going right back to the Volk claptrap of the actual nazis, 'our beautiful land for our pure people' is hardly new.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Darth Yan wrote: ↑2019-11-08 11:44amAlthough your cultish devotion to communism is rather sad
The fact that the lines between liberal ideologies are capable of being blurred to such a degree are in fact proof of the materialist thesis.
Ideologies are abstractions from reality. Their content does not reference the world as it exists, but are prefigurative - they advance a thesis about the way the world "ought" to be on the basis of preconceptualized notions about morality, aesthetics, etc. This lends itself to "innovative" novelty ideologies like eco-fascism, which are just as 'legitimate' as left-liberal environmentalism in the sense that neither take reality as their starting premise.
An actual, one-to-one representation of the world as it actually exists in thought will be immune to such hybridization.
All theories (bourgeois, fascist, Stalinist, Labourite, left-wing, or far-leftist) which somehow glorify and praise the proletariat as it is and claim for it the positive role of defending values and regenerating society, are anti-revolutionary.
Trump has floated plenty of heterodox GOP positions previously. Outside of foreign policy and trade, where POTUS has extensive discretionary power, they have by and large come to naught because he's entirely dependent on 3rd to 5th string GOPers to staff his administration and remains in power as a convenient pen to sign the pro-corporate backroom agenda of the Washington Republicans. He can piss off the neo-cons all he wants because they were always a weak tribe, officers without foot soldiers. On plutocracy and culture war issues, he remains entirely orthodox and will remain so.
For a President, Trump is extraordinarily weak. He lacks the committed followers to staff his administration and can't persuade those that don't agree with him to do what he wants and this sharply limits his freedom to pursue populist policies. He couldn't go against the GOP on climate issues even if he wanted to do so.
