Stickybuffalo.com

Well, that big health care reform legislative death-march for the sake of which pretty much every other priority was jettisoned sure was worthwhile, wasn’t it?

From NPR: California Approves Anthem Blue Cross Rate Hike

Remind me again, someone, of how we liberals are unreasonable and delusional for being so discouraged by the utter failure to pass meaningful energy/environment legislation, to advance the cause of gay rights, to close Gitmo, to quit dithering around in overseas quagmires, to challenge the ridiculous filibuster, etc., etc., etc.

Remind me, again, how we should be excited by President Obama’s and congressional Democrats’ major victories in saving the economy (for the finance industry, the auto industry and the super-rich; two of which three beneficiaries still loathe their benefactors anyway) and bringing about universal health insurance coverage (by the thoughtful method of introducing fines for failing to purchase the overpriced offerings of private insurance companies, for which a portion of the population will receive a grudging, flint-hearted subsidy, allegedly, someday, though in the meantime private insurers continue to push already unaffordable premiums up, with regulatory approval).

Yeah. I guess this great victory was so worth it, wasn’t it? I’d definitely rather have this wonderful reform which is doing so much to rein in health care costs than a start at securing sustainable energy supplies or a habitable planet for future generations.

In fact, let’s set priorities in all future Democratic governments (if any) by sacrificing everything else in favor of a halfhearted, sellout of an effort to achieve the pet project of the eldest member of the Kennedy dynasty. It’s proved to be such an absolutely fucking brilliant strategy this time, after all.

The one feature that neither Google, nor Apple, nor Facebook nor the Kindle nor any of them will ever offer:

“One man alone… cannot fight the future.”

Apparently there is word of “backsliding” at the latest in the ongoing world tour of climate change conferences (seriously, I should do up a T-shirt design illustrating this concept at some point). There is also at least one person insisting that “progress had been made,” but I know which perception seems more plausible to me.

I have to imagine the complete failure of the United States to even begin cleaning up our carbon-belching Great Satanic Mills, after trying just about every realistically possible party configuration at the federal level of our government, may be discouraging the climate diplomat community to some extent. (I know it discourages me.)

Thinking about this led me to a somewhat tangential question today, though: just what is the current opposition party’s position on climate change, anyway? Granted that Mitchy & pals seem unabashedly indifferent to requests for specific policy positions on most issues, right now. (And I’d like to condemn them more forcefully for this, except that Nance & Harry basically brought the Democrats back into power just four years ago via a similar, if more-supine and less-obstructionist, “we aren’t them” platform.)

Still, I honestly have a difficult time identifying even a de facto climate change position in today’s Stupid Party. For practical purposes, obviously, it seems (like so many other issues) to add up to “no no no no.” However, this particular obstructionism seems, unusually, to be lacking any kind of unified script or talking points.

So far as I can tell, right now the GOP “thinking” on climate change seems to be a free-for-all between any of the following:

• “It isn’t happening.” (“Climategate,” “Greatest hoax ever,” etc., etc.)
• “It is happening but it isn’t caused by human activity.” (Sunspots, or something.)
• “It might be caused by human activity, but needs more research…”
• “…and more debate.” (i.e. the familiar responses to near-complete legislation of “scrap it,” “start over,” “let’s slow down.”)
• Various shades of the inefficiency argument, from the pseudointellectual, Bjørn-Lømbørg-ish “the costs of inactivity are exaggerated and global development will be better served by expending resources in other ways” (though serious proposals for any of these alternatives are never mentioned), to the aggressively, defiantly shortsighted soundbite versions, e.g. “c(r)ap and tax,” “job killer,” etc.
• “Those damn dirty Red Chinese have to shut down all of their cars, utilities, etc., first.”
• edit: I shouldn’t leave the out the possible trend of the future, “their plan is a disaster but ours will be the greatest things since sliced bread;” their plan generally consisting of handing container ship loads of money to dirty industries.
• What passes for right wing “humor,” e.g. “gee my yard is full of snow in January, better do something about that global warming” or “Al Gore’s mouth is the top source of harmful emissions.”

But, I guess it is an increasingly confusing issue with nearly all of science (no matter how hard one tries to deflect this fact), an increasing number of big businesses, and even the occasional sub-federal-level Republican calling for government efforts to minimize this threat.

Fortunately, it seems that you can still maintain near-perfect party discipline so long as 1) no one thinks about the issue too hard (not a problem), 2) everyone reaches the same do-nothing conclusion, and 3) the “liberal media” give you a free pass on the matter.

And that’s how you make a “big tent” strateg(er)y work, kids.