Politics

What’s really behind the continuing attacks against Ilhan Omar: Part One

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments, mainly because this is the tool used to shut down debate and silence voices of dissent. Voices like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others who have spoken out against the inhumane treatment of Palestinians suffering Apartheid-like conditions and anti-humanitarian abuses at the hands of Israel’s military, funded in large part by the U.S.

But, I also don’t want to dwell too little on their relevance because they also reveal the very real attack, launched by both parties against Ilhan Omar, and the potential reasons behind it that we shouldn’t ignore.

Given the scale and scope of issues involved, this will be the first of two articles. Part One gives an outline of the now four incidents criticizing Omar for her comments and subsequent attacks on her safety and others by the President, members of congress, and special interest groups. Part Two exposes the possible reasons for these ongoing attacks, and looks further into who’s really driving the anti-Muslim agenda in America, and why Omar has been targeted as such a threat to their interests.

Part One

“It’s all about the Benjamins” baby…and “AIPAC”

The original efforts to smear Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments as “anti-Semitic” were led by the pro-Israel lobby  and advocacy groups like A JC and AIPAC, who successfully lobby congress for billions of dollars in military funding for Israel every year, push anti-BDS legislation at the federal and state level, and work to insure the long-standing policy of unquestioned US support for Israel remains intact.

The influence special interest groups like these can wield over US policy and political support touch at the heart of issues we should be discussing, and why they’ve gone to such lengths to silence any criticism or further debate.

Without the context of her words, however, it is easy to misinterpret what Ilhan Omar meant by her two tweets that led to such a swift and singular attack against her. The tweets were reacting to a tweet Journalist Glenn Greenwald posted:

“GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel.

It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans”.

~Glenn Greenwald

Rep. Ilhan Omar responded by retweeting Greenwald with her own comment, “It’s all about the Benjamin’s.”, referring to what motivated McCarthy’s threats over her criticisms of Israel, and the influence special interest groups use to sway political support and policy decisions in the US. When asked what she meant, specifically, Omar responded simply with “AIPAC,” referring to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that in 2018 alone was successful in lobbying senate approval for a $38 billion dollar military aid package to Israel.

Within the context of Ilhan Omar’s initial twitter exchange, there was nothing anti-Semitic in what Ilhan Omar said. She was not making a stereotype about Jewish people, but stating a fact- that money in politics has power, and her criticisms of the ‘problematic role of lobbyists in our politics’ have remained consistent, ‘whether it be (about) AIPAC, the NRA or the Fossil Fuel Industry’, as she referenced in her apology for having offended members of the Jewish community. An apology, worth noting, that was rejected by most of her accusers who continue to condemn her comments.

McCarthy’s own earlier statements highlight the hypocrisy of his finger- pointing at Omar, and indicate what may have been the real motivation behind his threats- Omar’s position on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and McCarthy’s longstanding ties and loyalty to AIPAC.

“Why am I expected to have allegiance/pledge loyalty to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee?”
-Ilhan Omar

A question Ilhan Omar posed a few weeks later while speaking at a Town Hall panel sparked even more controversy. Not about the subject matter of her comments, but of one singular question she posed. What followed was a swift condemnation, and further shouts of Antisemitism, spurred in large part by some of the media coverage which seemed to intentionally misconstrue what Ilhan Omar said.

Rather than give a direct quote or a clip of her comments, or even attempt an honest interpretation, her words and their intent were continually either taken out of context, intentionally misquoted, or completely fabricated. And once removed from their context, the question she’d asked was purposefully re-positioned to mean something entirely different.

“Let’s be clear. Omar did accuse Jews of dual loyalty, a common anti-Semitic trope, and also said the Israel lobby was too powerful. As to the second remark, it is not clear who is too powerful in Omar’s eyes. If she thinks the “Israel lobby” constitutes American Jews who act out of loyalty to a foreign country, she is simply doubling down on the anti-Semitism. If, however, she is saying that Israel, not American Jews, is too influential or powerful in American foreign policy, she’s wrong but within the bounds of civil discourse.”

Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post

“This dual loyalty charge has led to the mass murder of millions of Jews in history. I’m not sure that everyone understands how grave this issue is.”

Juan Vargas on Delaware Public Media

“Omar, who in January became one of the first Muslim women to serve in Congress, said Israel’s supporters push lawmakers to pledge “allegiance to a foreign country”, a remark that was viewed by lawmakers of both parties as playing into the antisemitic trope of “dual loyalty” –a myth that Jewish people are more loyal to Israel than their country of residence.”

Lauren Gambino, The Guardian,

Ilhan Omar’s actual comment did not refer to Jewish people, American Jews, Israel, or dual loyalty by anyone, nor was it her intent to imply an anti-Semitic trope about dual loyalty. Her comments were in response to the pressure placed on her, the expectation that she have loyalty to Israel as a member of the foreign affairs committee and as a sitting member of congress. This expectation was made explicitly clear to her by fellow committee members and other members of congress. This includes McCarthy, whose earlier threats to retaliate against her for criticizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians, led to her AIPAC tweets and the subsequent condemnation y other members of congress and fellow committee members.

The threats of retaliation against Omar for not heeding the warnings over her criticism of the Israeli government are reflected in the statement made by Eliot Engel, the chair of the foreign affairs committee, following her second comment.

“I welcome debate in Congress based on the merits of policy, but it’s unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur. This episode is especially disappointing following so closely on another instance of Ms. Omar seeming to invoke an anti-Semitic stereotype. Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize, and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.”

Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs

It’s hard to appreciate how idiotic and untrue the characterizations of Omar and her statements are without first understanding the full context of what Ilhan Omar said. Here’s a quote of her actual words while discussing the influence of money in politics and silencing debate by a foreign government over their humanitarian abuses, funded by the US.

“ It is almost as if every single time we (Ilhan Omar & Rashida Tlaib) say something, regardless of what it is we say, that is supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement, or advocacy,...about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life and wanting dignity...we get to be labeled as something that ends the discussion because we end up defending that...and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of what is happening with Palestine. " (...Cheers & Applause)

"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. "

I want to ask why it is OK for me to talk about the influence of NAFTA or Fossil Fuel Industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy?”
-Ilhan Omar
The allegiance she is referring to is her own, as she made clear in a later tweet, clarifying her words and their meaning.
“Why am I expected to have allegiance/pledge loyalty to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee?”
-Ilhan Omar

Instead of a legitimate debate about an important issue, Omar faced swift condemnation. A continuing escalation of anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks were hurled at her, insisting that what was said was yet another example of her anti-Semitic hatred. This led to an attempt at censure and reprimand in front of congress, and potential removal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, led by leaders of her own party. 

The swift call to judgement by Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in Congress who pushed for an immediate Resolution to reprimand Ilhan Omar over her remarks, also put a spotlight on Omar that has threatened her safety.

As reports of a hit-list and assassination threats grew, so did the glaring double-standard in the way we respond to an unintentional misstep by a Muslim woman of color versus the repeated anti-Semitic and bigoted remarks made by other white, mostly republican males in congress that have, for the most part , gone completed ignored. It also ignores the undertones, and at times very blatant anti-Muslim sentiment aimed at Omar over her comments.

The awful irony of the anti-Muslim poster surfacing, first displayed at a Republican booth in the lobby of the West Virginia State House on GOP Day, and later circulating across the internet, for example. The poster depicted Ilhan Omar in front of the Twin Towers engulfed in flames with a caption that read: “Never forget’-you said” and another below next to Omar, “I am the proof- you have forgotten”.

The silence, or lackluster responses from Nancy Pelosi and other democratic leadership is all the more baffling and horrific in light of their recent assault against Omar for far less egregious offenses.

But more troubling is what happened as a result. The Islamophobic mania stroked by repeated references to Omar and 9/11 terrorists by Trump and others that went without comment, for the most part, culminated amidst the newest attack against her for yet another comment taken out of context. This time, for allegedly dismissing the seriousness of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

“Here’s the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and, frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. So you can’t just say that today someone is looking at me strange and that I am trying to make myself look pleasant. You have to say that this person is looking at me strange, I am not comfortable with it, and I am going to talk to them and ask them why. Because that is the right you have.”
-Ilhan Omar, speaking at a CAIR event in March, 2019

Her comment was made during an event for CAIR, the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations. She was referencing why CAIR had been established and the high price that actions by a few radical extremists can have in fomenting hate and intolerance. An intolerance that Muslims in America are acutely aware of and that infringes on their rights as American citizens.

This one comment, again taken out of context, and the reaction to it clearly reflects the exact anti-Muslim sentiment Omar was pointing out. But, it wasn’t until after the NY Post front page story using the same image of the twin towers engulfed in flames that was used in the anti-Muslim poster of Omar and 9/11, that there was even a modicum of recrimination, the only ‘action’ taken by democratic leaders at the time.

However, their comments didn’t come to the defense of Omar, or mention the ongoing assault against Omar by the president and others that has continued to escalate since democrats first jumped on the bandwagon to accuse and reprimand Omar for perceived anti-Semitic tropes. Instead, Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders waited until enough negative attention forced a response, largely due to the the quick and unequivocal defense of Omar by other progressive democrats and presidential candidates following Trump’s targeting of Omar

In his twitter post equating Omar with 9/11 terrorists, Trump also made reference to the anti-Muslim poster of the twin towers and Omar. His comments and the video montage of Omar’s ‘some people did something’ comment juxtaposed to the horrific events of 9/11 have further jeopardized her safety. An increased level of threats have been aimed at her and other Muslims as a result, including Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.

In Nancy Pelosi’s initial comment, however, she chose only to criticize Trump, not for his ongoing anti-Muslim remarks aimed at Omar, but for using images of 9/11 for a “political attack”, while also validating the accusations against Omar in response to her comment.

The threats against Omar’s life and other congress members have continued to escalate. Recent violent death threats aimed at Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the other ‘first’ Muslim woman in congress, have since caused Pelosi to up the security level for Omar. However, this has only further escalated the president’s attacks against her.

So, why the leap to judgement and strict condemnation of Ilhan Omar, but such a reluctant response to the anti-Muslim bigotry by the President of the United States and other republicans, some of which at least borders on incitement of racially and religiously motivated hatred and violence?

Much of this can be traced back to that initial attack, led by the pro-Israel lobby, on behest of Netanyahu’s right-wing government, and the anti-Muslim and anti-BDS political operatives acting on their behalf.

For a deeper look into these influencers and why they may be targeting Omar, please stay tuned for Part Two of, “The Ilhan Omar Debate & Why it Matters: What’s Really Behind the Continuing Attacks Against Ilhan Omar?”

Tishacp.

Advertisements

This is an Opinion Piece.

I have had many debates (on Facebook) about the ideological center where the majority of people sit, we’re told, and where their policy views lie. But the ideology behind that center- the centrist democrat point of view, has been so off the mark, to my thinking, that I simply stopped calling it the ‘middle’ or center view of anything, and instead started calling it the majority view, especially when discussing progressive politics.

What has bothered me most in the past when debating the issue, is that we’ve been looking at the whole thing backward. We’ve been told that centrism is the moderate view held by the majority of people.

But it is really the other way around- it is the majority view that is at the center of America, and therefore the centrist view, and actually has nothing at all to do with the ideology of a ‘moderate’ centrist at all.

Or, at least, it shouldn’t. In our backwardness we have applied a “moderate” ideology to it because what we’ve identified as centrist has been wildly off-center.

Luckily, we have a different lens to look at this through, thanks to venture capitalist and entrepreneur, Nick Hanauer. He discusses the topic of centrism in his latest podcast, Pitchfork Economics: Should democrats appeal to the center by moving hard left? This is a follow-up to a story he wrote last August for Politico Magazine .

What Hanauer says in both his podcast and the article is that to gauge where the ideological center lies, we need to gauge where the majority of people are benefited and generally support an issue.

From this perspective, the ‘majoritarian’ center, as Hanauer calls it, (or the majority view-as I call it), is indeed the center view of the country. But the pragmatic centrism of the establishment-the centrist democrat view of the economic majority, is actually extremely, radically far right.

To understand this better, we have to determine what it is that we are weighing. The ‘majoritarian center’ accounts for what benefits the majority of people. That’s where the center of the country is. That’s also where the majority of support falls.This is NOT the economic center, however. Nor is it an ideological center. Yet, centrist democrats love to tell us their views are where most Americans fall in the center, however much to the contrary that is proven by what most people do or don’t support in poll after pool. Or how much evidence there is of who would benefit the most from a particular policy. In fact, that centrist democrat view is so skewed it seems almost the opposite of what the majority of Americans actually think, believe or support, let alone what they benefit from.

Nick Hanauer effectively illustrates this…with a yard stick!

First he asks us to imagine a 36-inch-long ruler where all of the people in the country are equally positioned along, with the person at the bottom of the economic ladder standing all the way to the left at zero and the wealthiest person standing all the way to the right at 36 inches. If everyone is equally aligned across the spectrum, and it does not correlate with its weight, then the center would be at 18 inches, in the middle. That is where presumably the majority of people fall.

Only, economically speaking, they don’t. 

Now, imagine the same ruler, but rather than measuring people we’re measuring personal wealth. The center would be where half of the personal wealth in the country is held, between zero and thirty-six inches.

Fifty percent of the wealth in America, however, isn’t held at the 18-inch, half-way mark. Fifty percent of America’s wealth is owned by the top 2 percent, which would put the center of the economic majority just before the last thirty-six-inch mark at the farthest right of the yard stick. Not only an apt depiction of income inequality, this also reflects how far off center we have become with where, or what we’ve been calling the centrist (majority) view. That view, which actually represents just the top 2% of the wealthy few, and their economic interests and agenda, is what we’ve been calling the ideological center of the American people!

Wrong.

If the majority view is the center and therefor the centrist view, then progressive policies that have majority support and benefit the majority of the people are actually the center, or ‘centrist’ position, and not the radical, extreme, or very far left minority we’ve been told they are, according to Hanauer. This is why progressive issues that effect and benefit the majority of people tend to have bipartisan support, on both-or all sides of the political spectrum.

In fact, the more progressive an idea, the more centrist it usually is! For example, the minimum wage, which Hanauer highlights in both his article and podcast.

Raising the minimum wage

Only a small portion of the country attempts to live on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, approximately 1.3 percent of workers. So, raising the minimum wage to $9 or $10 an hour, as Obama proposed, would only marginally benefit a small minority of people in the country. But, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour builds interest and momentum-and popular support because it would impact a larger portion of Americans-29.2 percent. If we raise the minimum wage even higher to $20 an hour, which is considered the far-left radical ‘progressive’ position, it would benefit the largest number of Americans by far. Currently, 50 percent of American workers make $18 or less per hour. So, a $20 an hr. minimum wage would both directly and indirectly benefit them, thereby representing the interests of the majority of workers at the median or center of the country.

The New Centrism and the rebirth of the American Dream

This ‘new centrism’ should come as no shock to most Americans. It was, after all, the prevailing New Deal liberal perspective following WWII.That New Deal ideology led to three decades of economic prosperity, the rise of the industrial revolution, and the expanding middle class that sparked the American Dream, as Hanauer points out in his Politico article. But we’ve gotten so far off message that we have forgotten what the American Dream was really all about, and what it represented to most Americans at the time.

In the town hall that Bernie Sanders recently held on Fox News, these perspectives are illustrated perfectly. During one of the several occasions that FOX News hosts point out Bernie’s new ‘millionaire’ status, they ask him if making a fortune wasn’t the American Dream? To which Sanders replied frankly, “no.”

And he was right.

Living the American Dream meant that a working-class family with one income could afford a nice house, buy a car, and send their kids to college. It meant having the economic stability to be able to give your children a better life.  It was not about getting rich or collecting excessive wealth and status at the expense of everyone else.

The modest, center view of the American Dream focused on the quality of life, not the quantity of your bank account.

For most working and middle-class people, the American Dream was to live a good, decent life where your kids had more opportunities than you did to truly partake in upward mobility, embrace the ideas of entrepreneurship and innovation, and move our country to the forefront of the global economy. For three decades, that’s just what we did, and we’ve been knocking down the gains from that 30 years of prosperity ever since. (Hanauer discusses this at length in his article.)

The New Deal idealism that sparked the American Dream, also sparked ideas like free public colleges and having healthcare as a human right. Which brings me to the next apt illustration from the town hall on Fox News, in front of the FOX News conservative, republican, far right viewing audience.

The majority of their audience, however, when asked if they would support a government-run single-payer healthcare system like Bernie Sander’s Medicare-for-All plan, burst out in vocal support and raised their hands and cheered…not quite the reaction that FOX News hosts were expecting, even with a contingency of Bernie supporters in the house.

That’s because most voters understand that Medicare-for-all gives healthcare to everyone as a human right, which affects and benefits the majority of Americans who are currently uninsured or under-insured. That’s also why most people support Medicare-for-all, whether they call themselves conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, or anything in between, or farther to the right or left.

Yet, we continue to confuse the center majority with the “ideological center balancing the interests of the top 2% against everyone else ‘, as Hanauer points out. This has led to the belief that incrementalism, bipartisanship, or the moderate center was and still is the centrist (majority), and that progressive issues like Medicare-for-all are far left, extreme, radical positions that most Americans don’t supports. The fact that progressive issues and center-majority issues are one in the same fails to resonate with centrist democrats, however.

The reality is that the Neoliberal centrist democrat isn’t the majority. They never have been, and their ideas are increasingly at odds with the real center where our collective majority interests lie.

Neoliberal centrism is also what helped created the Overton window where the center keeps moving further to the right. It’s what allowed decades of incrementalism, created such income and wealth inequality, and kept the political agenda in Washington virtually unaffected and un-swayed by the needs and wants of most people, and the policies that affect and benefit the majority of Americans.

Reclaiming the Narrative!

Which is why we need to reclaim the narrative about what truly is centrist and what truly is radical or extreme. Economically speaking, we need to shift our thinking of the center, not as the economic center, which paints 2% of the American population holding 50% of the wealth as the majority view, but instead what represents the economic policies that benefit-and are supported by the majority of the people. Form that perspective, we can reclaim the term-and the meaning of centrism, and the center/majority, and re-frame the progressive agenda as the truly centrist agenda that it is.

But first, we also need to divorce ourselves from the idea that ‘moderate’ is the same as centrist, or stop confusing the idea that the center view is a moderate view. We’re not gauging ideology-we’re gauging what benefits and is supported by the majority. So, incrementalism, Neoliberalism, or moderate views are not, in most cases, centrist views. Most of the time, pragmatic, incremental, Neoliberal centrist democrat positions are, again, radically far right because they represent a very small minority of people far to the right-of-center. (Just remember our yard stick!)

If we reclaim centrism as the progressive majority at the center of the country, then:

“What would a truly centrist democratic agenda look like?”

` Nick Hanauer

That is the question Hanauer poses in his latest podcast. Of course, he paints this argument from his position as a democrat, rather than as a progressive. While I don’t agree with everything Hanauer says about the democratic establishment, it makes sense to frame the narrative this way if that is the audience you are trying to reach. However, I still think he gives the democrats-especially centrist democrats, way too much credit.

For example, he talks about the far right economic ideology that centrist democrats have “internalized”, and what they mean by “pragmatic centrism” as,

“An economic policy agenda that necessarily balances the interests of business (the few) versus the interests of labor (the many) in an attempt to best serve the interests of all.” – Nick Hanauer, Politico Magazine

I don’t know that centrist democrats are concerned with ‘serving the interests of all’. They seem content to serve their own interests and call it the center majority interests, even when it is clearly not popular opinion. Even when it causes a decades-long stream of unprecedented democratic losses. Even when they simultaneously recognize how hard it is to get elected now without at least calling yourself a progressive! Yet, they still position progressive policies as the fringe minority, ‘unrealistic’ view, not supported by most voters. Or way too radical to ever win the bipartisan support needed to pass a policy measure through congress.

However, we know the real obstacle to passing progressive (centrist) legislation like Medicare-for-all, $15 minimum wage, or the host of other popular progressive policies that have been introduced. It’s their lack of political will. A lack that exists because the interests the democratic establishment serve are not the majority interests of the country, but the economic interests of the elite at the top of the wage and income gap, the ones funding their campaigns, influencing the party, and providing the revolving door through congress to lucrative jobs in the private sector.

Having said all that, Hanauer’s question is a good one, so let’s get back to the answer. The list of what a centrist democratic agenda might include could surprise you, but never the less, this is what Hanauer included (with a few additions of my own at the end). In the context of a ‘majoritarian centrism’, here is what a truly centrist democratic agenda could look like

The Centrist Democratic Agenda

  • ‘$15 minimum wage’
  • ‘Crucial infrastructure investments’
  • ‘Modern labor laws”
  • ‘Restored overtime threshold’
  • ‘Substantially higher wages on wealthy corporations and individuals’
  • Tuition-free public colleges and universities
  • Medicare-for-all
  • Green New Deal goals and projects

In other words, the progressive agenda is the most centrist political and economic ideology, held by the majority of people in America.

Tisha c.p.

The Green New Deal first gained notoriety after activists from the Sunrise Movement, along with freshman legislator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, held an impromptu protest in Nancy Pelosi’s office. Their ‘sit-in’ was to pressure support for a select committee to work on the Green New Deal. While ultimately unsuccessful, their push did draw enough attention to gain support from quite a few congress members. Twelve senators and a whopping ninety-one house members have since signed on as co-sponsors to the resolution.

The bold new initiative to transition the US to a clean energy, emissions-free economy within 10 years has continued to gain interest. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and others have used that interest to put a much-needed spotlight back on climate, with an urgent call to meet the grave warnings of Climate scientists in their 2018 updated IPCC report.

While support for the Green New deal continues to grow,  little focus has been on New Consensus.  Many may be unaware of the little-known policy group and think tank behind the current resolution. New Consensus, however, has been steadily working behind the scenes to turn the ambitious goals of the Green New Deal into reality.

In a recent interview with Ocasio-Cortez on MS-NBC’s  All in with Chris Hayes, some attention was gained for the group. The interview about the resolution included Co-Founder and Executive Director, Demond Drummer and Policy Director, Rhiana Gunn -Wright, who both spoke about their role with New Consensus. Ms. Gunn-Wright, the architect behind the current version of the plan, and its initial push promoting the Green New Deal, describes her work further in an interview with Cenk Uygur on the progressive online news site, The Young Turks ( TYT). A synopsis of what she shared on the inner workings of New Consensus and their role going forward, as well as a little about the organization itself, is below.

What is New Consensus?

New Consensus is a policy institute and think tank created by progressive activists and policy experts specifically to develop and promote the Green New Deal. Not only the birthplace of the current resolution, New Consensus has been the catalyst for “a World War Two-Scale mobilization to fix America’s Greatest problems.” according to their website. New Consensus has worked as advisers to the Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement, AOC and others to build a “sweeping economic mobilization” for a “clean and just economy”.

New Consensus is based on the belief that the obstacles to climate reform are not technical. They are political.  The old Neoliberal, “Washington Consensus” that led to incrementalism has centered around the pro-business, pro-Wall Street mindset of the political elite. That Neoliberal bubble inside the beltway directs the “economics, government, technology, labor and business” priorities that often stand in the way of fixing systemic economic problems exacerbated by climate change.

“Over a period when multiple existential threats to life as we know it have emerged into plain view, the Washington Consensus has deliberately sought to paralyze societies to prevent them from acting collectively.”

New Consensus.

As more people move away from the status quo mentality of Neoliberalism, a new world view has begun to emerged with a different set of priorities. From this, New Consensus formed.  The focus of the group has been on the critical role that government and public institutions must play in transforming our economy and society to a more sustainable, equitable system, just as they have done during times of great change in America’s past.

“New consensus thinkers are exploring how government and other public institutions can lead the transition to a green economy, close wealth and income gaps between groups, spearhead innovation and research, kick-start new high wage industries, and more.”

What’s Next for New Consensus & the Green New Deal?

March has been a busy month for New Consensus. They have been hard at work developing a plan for bringing experts, activists, and people in front-line communities together to create the critical policies and legislation needed to implement the fourteen goals outlined in the Green New Deal. While still in the initial development stage, policy reforms and legislation remain several months away. However, Policy Director Rhiana Gunn-Wright did share a few of the priorities for the Green New Deal in her interview with Cenk Uygur, outlined here.

Energy

  • Develop Policies to create a smart grid and/or decarbonize the electricity sector.
  • Investments in distributed renewable and solar energy.
  • A look towards energy governance and how to make energy systems more efficient.

Transportation

  • Investment in a clean, affordable public transit system using zero-emissions vehicles and high-speed rail.
  • Adoption and employment of Electric Vehicles (E Vs)
  • Find better ways to use bio-fuels, offset emissions, and other ways to decarbonize air travel.

Infrastructure

  • Upgrade and develop new sustainable infrastructure.
  • Public investments, beyond just highways and roads. Identifying what sort of investments are needed to reduce energy use.
  • A look towards land use and how to create more energy efficient communities.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the lofty, yet incredibly urgent goals outlined in the Green New Deal. To learn more about New Consensus and their efforts to mobilize a mass movement around the Green New Deal Resolution, their nifty 2-page guide on their site can help. For a more detailed, in-depth view, here’s a link to the fourteen-page outline of the goals, specific projects, and mobilization efforts that they are working on.

You can also find additional information about the Green New Deal Resolution on the various websites listed in this article, and from the TYT-Army website. Check in for future updates here as well!

Tishacp.