3 ms·

What’s the point of this comment? Seems needlessly inflammatory. Even if they did oppose, it would likely be on the grounds of the cost, which is worth it, but

What’s the point of this comment? Seems needlessly inflammatory. Even if they did oppose, it would likely be on the grounds of the cost, which is worth it, but still a valid complaint.

acdha 3y ago
It’s provocative but there is a valid topic in how many reasonable activities which are unambiguously good end up getting opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat. I remember impassioned pleas about the historic loss of incandescent light bulbs, leaded gasoline, etc. and knee jerk opposition to things like network neutrality or reducing pollution reduction from cars or power plants which is known to be killing people. This matters a lot at the moment because we need to significantly decarbonize our economy and the same people have been staunchly opposing that.
- justin66 3y ago
  > opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat It's certainly not just about who gets credit. I mean, there's also the question of whether other people's children's health is worth saving if it's going to increase a utility bill. Or the looming spectre of tax dollars spent on making someone else's life better, rather than one's own life.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I was thinking especially of a conversation I once had with my wife's coworker's spouse who was at the time a Republican environmental lobbyist. That sounds even more oxymoronic now than it did back then but he said that he used to have fairly good results getting coalitions together because even if they disagreed on a lot, especially in the West there were a lot Republican who liked to hike, fish, hunt, etc. and were willing to strike deals which would protect those natural environments. That didn't always work – e.g. ranchers were never going to support restoring wolves to their natural habitat – but he felt that over the years he'd been able to help get a fair amount of good done. According to him, that stopped being even conceivable the day Obama was elected and people like Mitch McConnell made it very clear to everyone in the party that there were to be no deals of any sort which could give Obama any sort of accomplishment, not even things which had previously been generally uncontroversial. It was apparently quite frankly stated that anyone who did so would have the national party and the right-wing media machine targeting them during the next primary as if they were a Democrat, even if it was something like getting something like a highway project in their state. They knew how Bush had been able to campaign for re-election on things like “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare part D which had only passed with some Democratic votes and were determined not to allow that to happen in reverse, just as we're seeing now.

What’s the point of this comment? Seems needlessly inflammatory. Even if they did oppose, it would likely be on the grounds of the cost, which is worth it, but still a valid complaint.

acdha 3y ago

It’s provocative but there is a valid topic in how many reasonable activities which are unambiguously good end up getting opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat. I remember impassioned pleas about the historic loss of incandescent light bulbs, leaded gasoline, etc. and knee jerk opposition to things like network neutrality or reducing pollution reduction from cars or power plants which is known to be killing people. This matters a lot at the moment because we need to significantly decarbonize our economy and the same people have been staunchly opposing that.

justin66 3y ago
> opposed purely because the right-wing doesn’t want to recognize a positive linked to a Democrat It's certainly not just about who gets credit. I mean, there's also the question of whether other people's children's health is worth saving if it's going to increase a utility bill. Or the looming spectre of tax dollars spent on making someone else's life better, rather than one's own life.
- acdha 3y ago
  I was thinking especially of a conversation I once had with my wife's coworker's spouse who was at the time a Republican environmental lobbyist. That sounds even more oxymoronic now than it did back then but he said that he used to have fairly good results getting coalitions together because even if they disagreed on a lot, especially in the West there were a lot Republican who liked to hike, fish, hunt, etc. and were willing to strike deals which would protect those natural environments. That didn't always work – e.g. ranchers were never going to support restoring wolves to their natural habitat – but he felt that over the years he'd been able to help get a fair amount of good done. According to him, that stopped being even conceivable the day Obama was elected and people like Mitch McConnell made it very clear to everyone in the party that there were to be no deals of any sort which could give Obama any sort of accomplishment, not even things which had previously been generally uncontroversial. It was apparently quite frankly stated that anyone who did so would have the national party and the right-wing media machine targeting them during the next primary as if they were a Democrat, even if it was something like getting something like a highway project in their state. They knew how Bush had been able to campaign for re-election on things like “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare part D which had only passed with some Democratic votes and were determined not to allow that to happen in reverse, just as we're seeing now.