3 ms·
Yes, but it enjoyed broad support, and was progressive in substance. The assumption that the Trump administration would be futile to engage with on what could b
by microcolonel 8y ago
Yes, but it enjoyed broad support, and was progressive in substance. The assumption that the Trump administration would be futile to engage with on what could be construed as a "green" cause seems to stem from a broader assumption that they are incapable of, or resistant to, progressive policy.
My point is that if you couch it in the same balanced terms, there's no reason why an equally progressive initiative in energy should be assumed to be futile.
- m0zg 8y agoBut it was the other way around: _the Trump administration_ (of which Kushner is perhaps the sharpest instrument; I had a media-distorted view of him until I watched some interviews -- dude is super smart) engaged with others in a bipartisan way to make this happen.
- microcolonel 8y agoCertainly, I get that; but I don't see why a similar effort couldn't be conducted from the outside in. Clearly it would work better to convince somebody effective within the administration to champion it, but my point was mainly that they're not inherently that resistant to it.