, , ,

Democrats: The Fake ‘Left’

This Week in the Narrative 70

Nigel Clarke

In case you haven’t heard, Donald Trump believes climate change is a “hoax.” I’m assuming you have heard though, since the point is well-repeated by Democrats everywhere.

As well it should be. The President’s opinion is … not reconcilable with scientific reality … is the nicest way I can put it.

If the overwhelming opinion of the science community is to be believed, then the earth has reached a breaking point which even modest action will not be enough to solve, let alone outright denial.

The good news is, on this particular issue states have the ability to bypass the federal government and enact change on their own. This would be similar to how same-sex marriage gradually swept the country, or how minimum wage standards are currently doing so — from the grassroots up. On the flip side, it is also why kids are holding a machine gun when they decide to shoot their classmates, and why in many states it is functionally impossible to get an abortion.

Ah, the infamous sphere of ‘state’s rights.’

Washington State has been seeking to utilize this playbook on the issue of climate change. This past week, led by Democratic Governor Jay Inslee — the proclaimed “greenest governor in America” — and Democratic-controlled state houses, Washington sought to implement the nation’s first carbon tax.

Perhaps not a moment too soon.

Recent studies suggest Americans overwhelmingly support taxing and/or regulating carbon pollution; perhaps upwards of 75%, including the majority of Republicans.

In Washington State specifically, a study by Yale University showed that “in every Congressional district across Washington, at least 7 in 10 voters (and sometimes close to 8 in 10) support regulating carbon as a pollutant, including solid majorities of Republican voters.”

Mainstream media presented Washington’s carbon tax as a seminal moment in the fight against climate change; perhaps the final crack in the dam which precipitates a flood.

“If it works in the state of Washington, it’s going to be tried in 10 states next year and 35 states the year after that,” the New York Times reported. Washington’s carbon tax was a “game-changer. Everyone will take it and copy it and be off and running.”

And then, at the crescendo of this great moment, the legislation was defeated.

That’s right: the “greenest governor in America” and his Democrat-controlled houses, in perhaps the most ‘left-wing’ state in the union, defeated their own legislation.

One such Democrat who expressed concern about a carbon tax throughout the process was state Sen. Christine Rolfes; she, a politician whose last campaign was funded by energy companies, rail companies, and large manufacturing companies.

No sh*t.

This is the usual playbook for Democrats.

Then-Senator Obama campaigned on universal healthcare, before delivering as President the corporate giveaway known as Obamacare. More comically, earlier this year when Democrats were speaking so passionately against Trump’s ludicrous tax cuts, some Republicans suggested that these Democrats should go on record stating they would not support the cuts in the future, as they did with the W. Bush tax cuts that Democrats spoke so passionately against before permanently codifying the cuts when they were set to expire a decade later.

In Washington State, the mainstream media quietly revealed the ruse.

“For Mr. Inslee, the loss of this week’s carbon-tax battle was just one step in a war to keep pushing his carbon plan, either as a ballot initiative this year — or possibly as part of a platform in a 2020 challenge against President Trump for the presidency. If he does run for president, Governor Inslee is expected to make climate change central to his platform,” stated the New York Times.

“This is not just about the state of Washington. This is about Jay positioning himself is a national leader on climate change. He is testing out themes and strategies.”


Democrats have no intention of implementing these things they speak so passionately about, that they criticize Trump so vigorously for opposing. They merely seek to test out “themes and strategies” in order to discover what issues they might use to their advantage during the next election, and the next one after that.

Just as Sen. Rolfes, at the moment of truth, chose to stand beside her donors rather than her constituents, so too does the Democratic Party utilize this approach as a fundamental pillar of its existence.

When I hear that Democrats are set to capitalize on displeasure with Trump and ride a “blue wave” into government at the state and national levels in 2018, my first thought is: So what?

Whether you openly state that climate change is a hoax, or support environmental regulation right up until the moment you oppose tangible legislation, the result is the same.

The result is the same.


Quote of the Week:


All previous ‘This Week in the Narrative’ articles can be found here.

Written by Nigel Clarke

Writer and notorious vagabond. From the frozen north. Follow Nigel on Twitter @Nig_Clarke.

Nigel Clarke is a Writer for Progressive Army.

One Comment

Leave a Reply
  1. When you make erroneous statements meant to frighten your readers, it creates a distrust in the rest of your statements.No student has ever killed classmates with a machine gun, which is a fully automatic rifle. The florida shooter, along with several others, have used semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. These latter rifles are no more lethal than any other rifle except for the ability to utilize high-capacity magazines, allowing many shots without having to stop to reload. Thus banning the so-called “assault” weapons is essentially useless since many other styles of rifles and pistols can utilize high-cap magazines.

    Your statement about anthropogenic global warming being scientific reality is also not true. While there are good correlation studies showing a positive relation between atmospheric CO2 and global warming, there is no valid proof that increasing levels of CO2 cause global warming. It could be just the reverse. The only other evidence is derived from sketchy computer models, which are easily manipulated and always affected by the rule “garbage in, garbage out”. Without definitive proof, do we really want to initiate legislation which diverts capital from immediate and definite problems, especially those which hurt the lower economic classes?

    But I certainly believe that you are correct in stating that there is not much difference between democrats and republicans, who mainly seek to be re-elected and need large amounts of monetary contributions from various lobby groups. These truths make it essential that we pass regulations/ amendments instituting term limits (1 term only so that there is no need to modify one’s actions for the purpose of getting re-elected) and prohibiting all campaign contributions over a minimal amount that would give every citizen a level playing field to affect election outcomes. No corporate, union or other group contributions allowed. This is the only way to take the election process from the corporate/ elitist/banking/bureaucratic deep state which now essentially controls the government for the purpose of enriching themselves and entrenching their power.

    Finally, I agree with your view of states’ rights. But not just for “progressive” legislation. The power of the central government certainly needs to be diminished and returned to the states which can better serve the citizens of the states and provide more choice for all citizens. But that would also include such non-progressive legislation such as abortion, settlement of immigrates, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

López Obrador And His Troubling Alliance With the Far-Right PES

Democrats: The Fake ‘Left’