Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

You are not the only one seeing emergence of dystopian nightmare in America

November 14th, 2016 · 2 Comments


Note: This photo has been going around the web, with seeing it multiple times & received into emails.  When/if I learn origin, I will provide appropriate credit both to sign maker & to photographer.

Note: The photo above and that from a post just a week ago provide a stark, stark statement as to the shift from (limited) optimism about humanity’s forward to a justified concern about America’s potential lose of its democracy and actual promotion of white power extremists into the White House.

Triumphant Celebration at Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: 2016 Presidential Election

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 John Egan // Nov 22, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Adam, I’m sure you are aware of the brouhaha over the National Policy Institute’s banquet at Maggiano’s this past weekend. While you were talking about doubling the price of gasoline and “Coal-Free by ’23” [note: where?] people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan were driving twice as far to make half as much.

    I have consistently argued that in order to preserve and expand environmental action, progressives had to ensure core economic opportunities for all – especially those most at risk.

    Which my proposals consistently have — as you are very well aware. Such as this whole series on Clean Energy Jobs that could/should have been in Stimulus Package.

    I have also stated that a growing right-wing movement was the greatest immediate threat and that to take actions which alienated a small but critical part of the Democratic coalition would hand the political reins over to the right.

    Right, my approaches are what handed ‘the political reins over to the right’ as opposed to:

    * Malfeasance in Clinton campaign in basic electioneering (Michigan example)
    * Russian interference
    * Comey/FBI
    * Media complicity in how they cover elections
    * Related to above three: #FakeNews
    * Racism / hatred of other
    * Etc,
    * etc,
    * etc …

    Why not try an actual honest assessment.

    Well, you have just done that.

    Yet again, you ascribe to me powers that, well, I don’t have.

    You have called me many things over the years – but you have never said that I was correct.

    B/c you are not correct in this. You have long advocated putting off for tomorrow what should be being done today. And, as per this comment, you are ascribing things to me that, well, simply aren’t correct (as indicated above)

    The reasons for Trump’s victory are far from being put on my plate.

    You have the notion that we should, throughout, simply say: “Pollute as much as you want b/c we won’t do anything to upset the apple cart of a potential voter.” My proposals have been about how to create win-win solution sets that would provide paths forward for people toward better lives while helping to address our climate/security/economic/etc problems.

    No, you are not correct.

    You have been peddling a form of science denial through promoting denial and embracing distortions from hacked emails (yes, going back to ClimateGate).

  • 2 A Siegel // Dec 23, 2016 at 8:47 am

    Hillary Clinton lost the White House and the Democratic Party lost the Senate/etc for many reasons.

    Your unending blaming of environmental policies and concepts is not just tiring but simply appears to be at odds with what was happening.

    Let us take ‘white working class’ as a surrogate for who you are saying environmentalism drives away from the party in masses.

    See this NYTimes article on how Clinton ‘lost’ the Obama coalition.

    In particular, look at the table “Appealing to White Working-Class Democrats: Donald J. Trump’s economic views hold some appeal for blue-collar white Democrats”. There are 12 items there re “Percentage of white Democrats without a college degree who say …:

    Top 1, “Gun rights are more important than control” is 45% and items 2 and 3 are about free trade, etc … “Stricter environmental laws cost too many jobs” is #10 on the list with 21% and far more, in fact, support stronger environmental policies.

    From that article,

    Mr. Trump won 20 percent of self-identified liberal white working-class voters, according to the exit polls, and 38 percent of those who wanted policies that were more liberal than Mr. Obama’s.

    The driving issue in ‘losing the Obama coalition’ was far, far from environmentalism writ large and certainly not the type of policy concepts that I have promoted/discussed.

    According to Mr. Trump’s campaign, the proof of his commitment to the working class wasn’t the auto bailout but the issue of trade: Mr. Trump said free trade was responsible for deindustrialization, and asserted that he would get tough on China, renegotiate Nafta and pull out of the trans-Pacific Partnership — two trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton supported or helped negotiate (she later rejected the trans-Pacific deal).

    Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump ran against the establishment — and against a candidate who embodied it far more than John McCain or Mr. Romney did. The various allegations against Mrs. Clinton neatly complemented the notion that she wasn’t out to help ordinary Americans.

    Taken together, Mr. Trump’s views on immigration, trade, China, crime, guns and Islam all had considerable appeal to white working-class Democratic voters, according to Pew Research data.

    Now, let’s be clear, “coal country” has gone deep, deep red. Just as there is no path toward winning over firm single issue anti-choice voters without flipping on a fundamental core issue, there is no chance to win single issue pro-fossil fuel voters without reversing course and embracing policies to destroy the future. Now, could there be ways to put a little more purple into ‘coal country’ with Van Jones like embraces of coal miners & communities as heroes who have sacrificed/suffered to help the nation achieve greatness? Yes, I think so — and have stated so in the past on more than one occasion. But that is a path toward helping them create a viable, healthier (individuals and communities, prosperous path forward rather than seeking to double down on energy policies that we know wreck our future prospects.