Vote Now, for Real

Hurricane Delta intensified from a tropical depression to a Cat 4 hurricane in just over a day (30 hours), and will likely hit the Yucatan Peninsula tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon. On Friday, it will likely become the fourth named storm this year to hit Louisiana, where evacuees from Laura are still living out of hotels. Delta is the 25th named storm in the Atlantic storm basin this year, making 2020 only the second year this many have ever been named–and our Delta formed over a month earlier than the one in 2005 did.

Are you taking climate change seriously yet?

Probably you are, that’s why you’re reading this blog, which is why I want to talk about voting again. For years, now, a majority of Americans have wanted meaningful climate action, and yet collectively we elect candidates who do not deliver it–and who promise not to deliver it. What gives? Clearly there are many possible explanations, and most are probably at least a little true, but at least part of the reason must be that a lot of people don’t vote or don’t vote with climate change in mind.

This is the year that has to change

And I’m sorry, but voting for climate action means voting for Joe Biden.

I say “I’m sorry” because I really don’t like appearing to be partisan on this blog. I don’t work for the Biden campaign, and if I did I wouldn’t blog about it here because this is about climate change not politics. I’d like to say “these are the candidates who have strong positions on climate, pick whomever you like.” But that’s not the situation we’re in.

I’ve written about the issue of third party/independent voting at the presidential level before, but it’s time I do so again because there are some important things I haven’t said yet on the subject.

Look, I’m familiar with the arguments for not picking someone for president from a major party. I was a Ralph Nader voter, once upon a time, and I made those arguments. Some of them I now recognize as fallacies (for my exploration of the “there’s no major difference” argument, click here), and my thinking on the subject has evolved even over the past four years–but I still believe people deserve more than either major party is prepared to deliver.

The problem is that the general election for the office of US President is not an effective place to go get that “more”. It’s the wrong part of the cycle.

If you’ll pardon me summarizing some things some of you doubtless already know, I’ll explain why.

In a parliamentary system, people vote for whichever MPs they want and then the MPs get together among themselves and form a government. There can be zillions of parties running candidates, and several parties can all win seats. But in the process of forming a government they all organize themselves into two groups–the ruling coalition (which elects the Prime Minister) and the opposition.

In contrast, in the United States all the different voting blocs form coalitions during the primary season, eventually forming two prospective governments. At the election, one becomes the ruling coalition, headed by the President, while the other becomes the opposition. These two groups may have the same names for generations on end, but they aren’t consistently the same parties–the coalitions get re-assembled at least slightly differently every four years.

So in a parliamentary system the general election begins the process of creating a government, whereas in the American system the general election finishes the process.

The way our political system is structured, more than two people can stand for the general election as candidates for president, but only two have a shot at winning–not because they’ve been fore-ordained by shadowy powers-that-be, but because they’ve been chosen by an extended coalition-building process that includes lots of voter participation. It’s not necessarily the best system, but it’s the one we’ve got.

If you don’t like the kind of people who normally get nominated, there are a couple of things you can do about it.

• Support and vote for candidates of a different kind in local elections (or run yourself)
• Support and vote for candidates of a different kind for Congress (or run yourself)
• Support and vote for candidates of a different kind (or run yourself) in the primary
• Participate in the creation of a new major party, if you find yourself in a rare historical moment where one of the two majors can be replaced

Note that it’s fine to go third-party or independent in those first two steps because they happen largely outside of the coalition-building process that creates the two prospective governments–and indeed it was Vermont’s support of Bernie Sanders, a Democratic-Socialist, that allowed him to build the stature necessary to get very close to winning the Democratic nomination.

Alternatively, small-scale races make it possible for unusual people to win on major-party tickets who would not necessarily be welcomed by their party for a national race–and once elected, they can build the stature necessary to change who their party is willing to run. Barack Obama is a good example.

Voting for a radical candidate for local office–in hopes of someday being able to vote for them for national office–is one way to do it. Another possibility is that by supporting a new kind of local candidate one can help create the political climate that will change the parameters of who can get nominated nationally.

Consider that the election of Donald Trump–a man who was certainly not anointed by the Republican establishment and whose campaign in many ways resembled that of a well-funded independent–arguably began with the election of the Tea Party Republicans in local and state-level races. Over six years, Mr. Trump and his allies built a coalition capable of more or less becoming the new Republican Party.

There is no reason a progressive candidate could not build an equivalent coalition and pull off a similarly radical win, it just hasn’t been done this cycle.

It’s important to recognize that electing a president is a group activity.

Imagine that your company has given your department a free dinner as a reward for something or other, and that the group of you can decide where to go (let’s say this is pre-COVID). You all discuss it, and eventually determine that everybody either wants, or at least is OK with, either the pizza place on the corner or that Vietnamese restaurant you’ve heard so much about. Now, you’re deathly allergic to tomatoes, so pizza is absolutely out, but Vietnamese is hardly your favorite.

If you were alone you’d go for Moroccan, of course you would, but that’s not the situation–if you want to have dinner with the group, you’ve got to vote for one of the two options that is acceptable to the rest of the group. Doing something with a group of people often involves choosing something you wouldn’t choose if it were just you, but as long as you can prevail on your colleagues to not choose the tomato pizza, maybe you can enjoy a free evening out.

Not to trivialize the choice; it’s an imperfect metaphor.

Build the coalitions you need to build, people, but this year is not the year for anyone to dine alone–because we need you in the group.

The climate needs you.

Debating Third Parties

Last night was the first presidential debate. I’m not going to go into political commentary here overall, but a few things stand out.

Mr. Trump’s aggression, for example. I’ve watched many debates over the years, and this was the first I’ve ever seen with such unrelenting bullying. Unfortunately, such tactics have a certain amount of political power. More relevant here is what didn’t come up for discussion–climate change. I wasn’t surprised. While the candidates are beginning to treat the issue as politically important, debate moderators, interviewers, and the news media still generally treat the environment as a niche issue. That has to stop, and should have stopped already.

Curiously, the most pro-environment statement the entire night came from Donald Trump, when he denied being a climate denier. Secretary Clinton made a jab at him for claiming that climate change is a plot by the Chinese, and he insisted he never said that. He was lying, he did tweet about China inventing climate change, and while he claims that was a joke, he has a long and consistent history of calling climate change a hoax benefiting the Chinese. What I find interesting that he’s feeling the need to disavow that particular statement. It means we’re making some progress.

If we can just get a climate-sane person into the Oval Office, we might be able to save the world.

At present, that person has to be Mrs. Clinton. No one else is in striking range. I’m sympathetic to the argument that Mrs. Clinton is an insider, that her commitment to the environment (and other issues beyond the scope of this article) is not as radical or as unambiguous as we need, that the political system that she serves and perpetuates is itself our problem. Personally, I like Mrs. Clinton. I usually don’t say this sort of thing here, but I am excited for her presidency. I don’t support her merely by default. But there are those who want more than she can give, and they are not foolish to want that.

The presidential race just isn’t the most effective place to fight for third parties.

Presidential races are, by definition, national. That means that you need a huge amount of money and organizational support just to get noticed, let alone win, and you have to be able to assemble a huge and varied coalition of constituents. While there are occasional exceptions–among which I do count Bernie Sanders–the game belongs to insiders who can cozy up to the elites and appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses. Great presidents are those who can do so and genuinely serve our country. There have been a few.

But when you’re looking to change a system, you need to look at the part of the system that is ripe for change–the first domino, so to speak. You look for a critical place where a small amount of effort can flip a switch and ultimately cause widespread change. Trying to attack the American political duopoly at the presidency is just the opposite of that strategy, and it doesn’t work. The presidency is where revolutions finish, not where they begin.

Then, too, the American President, by design, has very little independent power. Executive action without Congress is sharply curtailed by law and politically dicey. Let’s say that Jill Stein were elected President; either she would find a way to compromise and work with others just like other politicians do, or she would remain ideologically pure and totally ineffective because Congress would ignore her and the states would fight her executive actions tooth and nail in the courts. How would that help anybody?

You want a revolution? You need to go after Congress and you need to go after state legislatures.

Legislative districts, both State and Federal, are relatively small. Unless a national organization gets involved and starts pouring in money, they can be won relatively cheaply by people who have a good record of community service and little else. A much smaller electorate means much less political inertia and a much greater chance of radical sentiment gaining ground. There is much more political (and demographic) diversity in Congress than among high-level candidates for the Presidency because each Congressional district can reflect the particular politics of its residents, whereas a national campaign inevitably takes a sort of average of the nation. Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of this principle–in his district, an independent Democratic Socialist can have a relatively safe seat. That he even got close to a national nomination is a political miracle.

So, legislatures are easier to get into, and potentially they are the more powerful positions.

The Federal legislature, of course, crafts the laws which the President executes, creates the national budget, and approves, or decides not to approve, many of the President’s decisions. As we have seen, the legislative leadership can effectively block the President from making appointments to the Supreme Court. While Congressmembers must act collectively, an individual can become hugely influential within the group through political skill and seniority, and any seat in either chamber has the potential to rise to prominence that way.

And of course, from Congress, the White House becomes much more accessible.

State legislatures are similar, with the added power that these are the bodies who draw district maps–they gerrymander, for better or worse, and can and do shape national policy indirectly for generations that way. And those constituencies are even smaller, so those seats are even easier to win.

A vote for a third party or independent presidential candidate is symbolic, but it’s not more than that. Your candidate will not get elected. You may or may not become morally responsible for the election of a climate-denier, but the best that can be said is you’ll do nothing. If you want to do something, look at the presidential candidates who have a real shot of winning and vote for the better one. And, and this part is important, vote for radical candidates for the State and Federal legislatures, or run for those offices yourself (and vote).

That’s how you can change the world.

 

Your Tuesday Update: They Did WHAT?

Apparently, the Supreme Court just blocked President Obama’s plan to regulate and reduce carbon emissions. I know, I’m upset, too.

But the situation may not be as dire and unreasonable as it seems.

First of all, Mr. Obama’s plan is not dead–this is not the final ruling. The legality of the plan is being challenged in a lower court by a group of states worried about economic harm and the Supreme Court has simply decided that the plan can’t go into effect until the legal question is settled. Disappointing, especially since time is of the essence when it comes to climate action, but to my layperson’s view the principle here seems sound:

If the plan might hurt people (cost them jobs, etc.), then it should not go into effect until we are really sure it’s legal in the first place. After all, if these states are right, it will do their citizens little good to be vindicated after the regional economies have collapsed. This is just the same Uncertainty Principle that environmentalists usually like.

Of course, the net effect of climate action will be economic and social benefit, whether certain people recognize that or not, and we can only hope the courts ultimately recognize that. But the real problem is not what’s happening in the courtroom but what’s happening in the election booth. We need state governments and a Federal legislature that support climate action. And we need a pro-climate President, both for the sake of the presidency and because whoever sits in the Oval Office next will likely appoint four Supreme Court justices–and this recent upsetting decision to block the President’s effort to save the world? The decision was split precisely along ideological lines.

We need a pro-climate Supreme Court.

More Candidates!

I have already profiles the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, plus Martin O’Malley, who is also seeking the nomination. I have not profiled any of the Republican hopefuls because this here is a blog on climate change and none of them are serious on the issue (although their collective denialism shows signs of weakening). But there are more candidates to cover.

To be clear, our next President will almost certainly be either Clinton, Sanders, or one of the Republicans. I don’t mean to discourage anybody–I’m in favor of underdogs, and anyway limiting the Presidency to those who are already politically powerful is antithetical to democracy. But at the same time, I doubt most people will have a chance to cast a vote for Lincoln Chafee or Lawrence Lessig. I think they will probably drop out before the primary process is complete. And most independents and “third party candidates” will not have ballot access in most states.

But they are still running and should be heard–and may in some cases be able to shape the political discussion for the front-runners.

Lincoln Chafee is the Democratic hopeful no one has ever heard of. Or, at least I hadn’t heard of him until he turned up on the debate stage the other week, though he declared back in June–and while I’m not a news junkie I am pretty aware. Publicly, he seems best well-known for favoring the metric system, although that is hardly his most important or most interesting platform plank (that would be his self-identification as a pacifist, a truly radical stance for a prospective Commander-in-Chief).

He does have experience, having served in the US Senate and as Governor of Rhode Island. He is also a former Republican–he switched as a Senator, first to Independent, then to Democrat. His website paints a picture of him as an intelligent, thoughtful, and principled person. His main drawback as a potential President seems to be that no one has heard of him and therefore few people have bothered to write anything about him. He is a bit of a cipher.

As far as climate change, he certainly talks the talk, acknowledging the seriousness of the problem and pledging to do something about it. He says he would not approve Keystone, a nice and concrete promise and one not without some political risk. And while he refused to pledge not to take campaign money from the fossil fuel industry, at least he acknowledged the question, which Hillary Clinton did not. He also walks the walk, at least to some extent–in addition to a history of sticking up for environmental legislation generally, he is responsible for putting Rhode Island on track for a very steep reduction in fossil fuel use.

On the other hand, his economic plans center around the concept of “growth,” something that is logically incompatible with sustainability given that the Earth’s resources are finite. His score with the League of Conservation Voters is 78, which is not bad but is not stellar.

Would he stand up for the planet if he made it to the Oval Office? Maybe. I don’t think he’s in Martin O’Malley’s league or Bernie Sanders’, but he certainly wouldn’t be a disaster, either. His presence on the scene is encouraging.

Lawrence Lessig is a political outsider who plans to stay that way. Not only does he have no prior experience in public office (he is a writer and law professor), but he plans, if elected, to resign after just one year. Lack of experience is not necessarily a problem except that it means we more or less have to take his word on his values and intentions. His intention to resign is a problem. I expect he’s trying to underline is lack of ambition, but the job is a four-year minimum commitment. Says so in the Constitution.

Frankly, I think he should run for Congress instead. His entire game plan is to get a law passed that would get money out of politics–a noble and necessary goal, but that’s not something a US President can do. The Chief Executive can support legislation as part of his or her agenda, but the White House just isn’t where legislation happens. Mr. Lessig knows that, of course, and is almost certainly using the cachet of a Presidential campaign to draw attention to his cause, not actually hoping to win. I’d rather he simply go to Congress where he belongs and get the job done.

But he is interesting in that he recognizes that climate change is part of his one issue–that the problem of money in politics really has to be solved for our country to make much progress getting off of fossil fuel.

I wish all candidates would have an equivalent recognition–that Mr. Chafee would address climate change in terms of his primary issue (peace and security), for example…most people treat the environment as a separate issue, and it really isn’t.

Unless I get seriously distracted by other topics, in the next week or two I will post on a few of the even longer shots out there.

Jack vs. Jenny for Climate

I could do an entire series on Presidential contenders and climate change, but barring a major change in the field I probably won’t. There is no real reason for me to cover the Republicans, unless one of them comes out strongly in favor of climate action (something I dearly wish would happen), and I’m guessing that  the Democratic field is more or less set, now. Yes, a Warren campaign would be fun to see, but she has disavowed interest for this cycle and we badly need her in the Senate right now. Her political star is rising and she will have time to run for President (and quite possibly win) at some point in the future. Joe Biden has run before but has no plans to do so now. His Presidential boat has probably sailed sailed. Martin O’Malley has shown some interest, and he certainly has his merits, but nobody outside of Maryland has heard of him and he has not announced.

So, we’re looking at Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We’re also looking at the most important American Presidential election the world has ever seen. I’m not indulging in hyperbole, this is the big one. President Obama has made an important start on dealing with the problem, but he’s only been able to act through executive order, which means his successor could wipe out all his gains with the stroke of a pen–and without US leadership, much of the world’s climate response will fall apart. It’s not that the US is a shining example of climate concern–we’re rather the opposite–it’s that a huge portion of the problem belongs on our doorstep and everybody knows it. We got rich and powerful as early adopters of fossil fuel, and the only way to get countries like India and China to forgo their fair share of that wealth is for us to bite the bullet and clean up our own mess. And since the chance of getting a climate-sane veto-proof majority on both houses of Congress is roughly nil, and since we really don’t have time to wait another four or eight years  to act on this issue, the upcoming Presidential election is basically about saving the world. Or not.

So, the big question is, which Democrat should climate-sane people support? Yes, I said Democrat; the place to create a viable third party is in state and local elections. Who can go toe-to-toe with whichever champion the Kochs decide to anoint?

(The title of this post, by the way, is a reference to the male and female Democratic hopefuls; most people know that a male donkey is correctly called a jack, but less well-known is that female donkeys are jennets or jennies. I find the idea of “jenny” as a technical term for an animal completely charming. And, the unfortunate connotations of “ass” notwithstanding, donkeys make fine political mascots–they are extremely strong and sure-footed, and they have a reputation for not letting people push them around.)

Personally, I would love for Mrs. Clinton to become President. She is clearly capable of doing the job and it is simply ridiculous that the United States hasn’t had a female chief executive yet. But I hardly ever hear her speak on climate and she has a reputation (which may or may not be deserved) for political expediency. Would she really make the issue a priority if it got in the way of her ambition? Mr. Sanders clearly has no problem whatever with political integrity (if he were interested in lying to improve his image, he wouldn’t call himself a socialist) and his loyalty to liberal, progressive causes is unassailable. And while it’s true that he seems a long-shot for the White House, so did Mr. Obama, and for almost exactly the same reasons (complexion aside, of course). But those were first impressions, and the moment clearly needs more than that. So, let’s take a look at these people. And since both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders have extensive experience in office, we have something other than campaign promises to look at.

Bernie for President?

Bernie Sanders’ senator’s website (as opposed to his campaign website) includes a poll on climate change. The first question asks respondent to choose between cutting Medicare and similar programs and imposing a carbon tax on “big polluters” as a method of deficit reduction, so the political bent of the poll is obvious. The point is to frame climate change as a liberal, progressive issue and to paint any objectors as big-business bullies who want to take money away from old people. I don’t really like such bald politicking, and I worry that it could backfire by further alienating social and fiscal conservatives from the environmental cause, but at least Bernie and his advisers are willing to put a lot of their eggs in the climate basket. That’s a good sign.

(I make a point of using respectful last-name address here, but Bernie likes to be called Bernie, apparently).

Bernie Sanders is a career grass-roots politician with a long record of dedication to economic and environmental issues. He has been almost continually in office since 1981, first as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, then in the US House of Representatives and now the US Senate, where he currently serves. He is 73 years old, so we can expect his physical fitness to be questioned at some point, but Mrs. Clinton is almost as old as he is and both belong to a long-lived generation. He has spent much of his career advocating for the middle class and for alternative energy, especially distributed solar energy (household solar panels rather than the solar equivalent of a big power plant).

He is currently ranked 1st on climate leadership within the Senate and in recent years has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of important climate-friendly energy bills (that went nowhere, unfortunately). He is certainly aware of oil money in politics and openly refers to it as an adversary he intends to conquer by mobilizing massive grass-roots support–an inspiring image. He attended the People’s March for Climate Change (as did I) and is responsible for a brilliant little political move earlier this year; he amended a bill that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline with a question on climate change, forcing Senators to go on record as to whether they believed climate change is real.

However, Mr. Sanders has stopped short of asserting that all remaining fossil fuel should stay in the ground. There is some speculation that he might say it, but he hasn’t yet. And of course there is the question of whether he can get elected in the first place, given that he is an outspoken giant-killer. Giants don’t like giant-killers and they fight back.

Hillary! Hillary! (maybe)

Hillary Clinton actually had a very good voting record on environmental issues as a Senator–87%, according to the League of Conservation Voters, a record that would have been higher had she not missed some votes while campaigning for President eight years ago. In that campaign, she included an ambitious climate action plan in her platform.  On climate alone, in fact, her record is nearly as good as Mr. Sanders’, it’s just that he talks more than she does about it. Almost more to the point, Mr. Clinton has supported exactly the same climate policies as Barack Obama, both as a presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008 and when she was Secretary of State. That means that she has disappointed environmentalists and will probably continue to do so (as Secretary of State she championed fracking overseas, ostensibly because natural gas produces less carbon dioxide when burned than coal), but she is a vocal opponent of climate denial and has stated that “the unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost.” Wherein she is absolutely right.

Where does this leave us?

So, where does all this leave us? In a pretty good position, actually. It means that whichever of the current two hopefuls actually get the Democratic nomination, we’ll have a major-party candidate who takes climate change very seriously and will, if elected, preserve and possibly extend Mr. Obama’s critical executive actions and diplomatic work on the issue. And it’s encouraging that they each have a passionate fan base that has been calling for their champion to run since approximately twenty-five minutes after Mr. Obama took office for his second and final term. We could win this.

The question really comes down to which one is more likely to beat a Republican and which one, if elected, is going to be better able to enact the climate-sane policies they both want.

At this time, I actually think that Bernie Sanders is the more electable of the two, and not because, or not only because, he is male. The issue is that neither of them are going to be able to win with a centrist, appeal-to-moderate-Republicans strategy–though Mrs. Clinton may try, since she seems to be temperamentally a pro-establishment moderate Democrat. The problem for her is that a lot of people really dislike her and always have. Frankly I do think sexism is part of it; as a candidate, Bill Clinton had a serious political problem in the person of his powerful, outspoken wife, who quite clearly was going to help him run the country if she could. A female President is no longer quite so scary a prospect a quarter-century later, but the venom spit on her then still clings to her career. She remains the target of an ongoing series of ad-hominem attacks thinly veiled as controversy and scandal. She can’t make people like her who don’t already. Like Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton is only going to be able to draw additional votes by mobilizing people who would not otherwise vote at all–and as a pro-establishment politician, she’s unlikely to be able to do that. Bernie Sanders can and already is; radicals have been trading Bernie Sanders quotes on Facebook for a couple of years now.

But could Bernie Sanders use the Executive Branch effectively if Congress proves as intractable for him as it has for Mr. Obama? As an experienced legislator he clearly knows how to work with the Legislative Branch, but that won’t help if it refuses to work with him and that may happen (see my earlier comment about giant killers). Maybe he can, but he’s something of an unknown in that respect. Mrs. Clinton, in contrast, has extensive experience with executive power and diplomacy, and while she’s even more likely to face a hostile Congress (see my earlier comments about people disliking Hillary), it is entirely clear that she can and will play hardball when necessary. We will not lose President Obama’s climate actions on her watch.

We have time in which to make up our minds (or to watch registered Democrats make up theirs, in states with closed primaries). What we do not have to for is to be lackadaisical about making sure that everyone gets out to vote this time. We cannot see a repeat of the recent mid-term election, when liberal and progressive voters stayed home and pro-business, anti-climate candidates swept gubernatorial and congressional races in state after state.

The Earth has to win this one.