You are describing a populist, not what is being suggested as popularist. No one is suggesting that Democrats start railing about illegals taking jobs from hard working Americans. What they are suggesting is that you loudly do the things that Democrats want to do that are popular like the CTC expansion, and then quietly do things that ar…
You are describing a populist, not what is being suggested as popularist. No one is suggesting that Democrats start railing about illegals taking jobs from hard working Americans. What they are suggesting is that you loudly do the things that Democrats want to do that are popular like the CTC expansion, and then quietly do things that are unpopular like spending money to fix climate change. If instead you loudly proclaim that you want to tax gasoline to subsidize solar panels then you won't win elections and the party that doesn't do anything at all about climate change gets to make the rules.
I was merely responding to the deficient definition of "popularist". As far as your suggestions go, I suspect it isn't possible to "quietly" fix climate change. Instead, it should be billed as a business opportunity. Some amount if climate change is inevitable at this point. Some has already happened. The US is well-positioned to be the supplier of technology and know-how that will be needed by the whole world. It should attack it directly rather than letting the fossil fuel industry quietly deprioritize it.
Quietly fixing climate change is basically what we have been doing this whole time. Attempts to do big things like implement a carbon tax even fail in liberal-as-it-gets Washington state. The average voter says they aren't willing to spend $100 a year to fix climate change. But there was a lot of money for fighting climate change in the infrastructure bill. Progressives railed about not doing enough to fight climate change in that bill as well as in BBB, but the reality is that chipping away at it by slipping things into other bills is the only real way to achieve progress.
You are describing a populist, not what is being suggested as popularist. No one is suggesting that Democrats start railing about illegals taking jobs from hard working Americans. What they are suggesting is that you loudly do the things that Democrats want to do that are popular like the CTC expansion, and then quietly do things that are unpopular like spending money to fix climate change. If instead you loudly proclaim that you want to tax gasoline to subsidize solar panels then you won't win elections and the party that doesn't do anything at all about climate change gets to make the rules.
I was merely responding to the deficient definition of "popularist". As far as your suggestions go, I suspect it isn't possible to "quietly" fix climate change. Instead, it should be billed as a business opportunity. Some amount if climate change is inevitable at this point. Some has already happened. The US is well-positioned to be the supplier of technology and know-how that will be needed by the whole world. It should attack it directly rather than letting the fossil fuel industry quietly deprioritize it.
Quietly fixing climate change is basically what we have been doing this whole time. Attempts to do big things like implement a carbon tax even fail in liberal-as-it-gets Washington state. The average voter says they aren't willing to spend $100 a year to fix climate change. But there was a lot of money for fighting climate change in the infrastructure bill. Progressives railed about not doing enough to fight climate change in that bill as well as in BBB, but the reality is that chipping away at it by slipping things into other bills is the only real way to achieve progress.
Of course, because it's always presented as a price to be paid. You've proven my point.