Well Roger this IS unusual, with more than twice as many comments as likes. We are facing a rare Congressional term in which one party has both houses (perhaps) and the presidency. The last time was Obama's first term. The Dems paid off a lot of their constituencies, assuring that they got the boot from the house two years later. This is an established pattern, wonderfully detailed by Morris P. Fiorina in his book Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate published in 2017.
I don't see this so much as an "incredible realignment". It is an example of what happens when the party in power drifts to far from the values of most Americans. This election is more about saying no than about saying yes.
Well, this is explicitly a comment post. I am happy to host forums for THB subscribers to engage with me and each other. I'd guess that the person commenting most on this thread is me in response to all sorts of comments - some in agreement with views of mine, others not. Which is the point of conversation -- achieving disagreement while valuing a community. It is not a battle for likes, clicks, or debate victory, but a healthy exchange of views that differ.
Roger, I don't mean to be preachy and you probably don't want coaching from me but you have a talent for coming across as condescending in a number of your discussions here. I'm not sure why you feel the need to tweak noses quite so much today. Could it maybe have something to do with the results of the election?
Two immediate thoughts and they are without doubt true.
1. Harris is not a person of high character. She is a chameleon whose career has been elevated due to her chosen identity of the moment combined with California's infamously neo- liberal voter base and state government. The idea that she has had profound misgivings about her former positions on substantive issues is utterly fatuous and grasping.
2. The Democrat party and leadership alongside the American punditry have become detached from the reality of working class Americans and conservatism. The notion that Dems suffer because they are degreed missed the point. They suffer because the educated classes are so often lacking in humility and interested in addressing difficult problems with anything other than platitudes and derision of their philosophical opponents.
You have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with this post. I respect that and I hope that most people who support you can "cope" with some views that differ to theirs.
I'm not American voter..so I'm only an onlooker.
If I'd had a vote, I would have voted Trump. The why is mainly down to my "gut feel " and belief that the world needs a capable ( interpret that as you will) US President right now.
You also shared an early comment of yours:
"The core problem facing Democrats, in my view, is that they have become a party of the wealthy and the highly educated. . . The basic problem here for Democrats is simple electoral math. There are a lot more voters who do not have college degrees than do".
That comment suggests that smarter,more educated and wealthier people vote democrat. Clearly they aren't that smart!
I count myself as well off, probably more so than 90% of democrat voters.
To be candid, I don't trust politicians...full stop ( period for our American friends :)...but I feel the Democrats were presiding over the demise of Rome.
Keep up the good work..thank God this only happens every 4 years!!😂
I shared a draft with higher-ups at NCAR and the NSF, which funded NCAR.
All hell broke loose because I was critical of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as being justified on its policy relevance but organized to advance science., with little connection to the needs of policy makers.
There was a huge debate over whether I should be allowed to publish it, because my criticism might somehow hurt the funding of climate research.
Obviously, it was eventually published.
At that time I decided I would never bend to the demands of funders that I tailor or censor my research based on their perceived interests.
So THB readers who (threaten to) unsubscribe based on my sincerely-held views are not going to get me to change my views or my writing. Subscribing requires a choice and I appreciate and respect every subscriber. It is humbling and motivating.
Of course, this also is one of the wonderful things about Substack - No author is beholden to any one subscriber. That gives me and other writers much more freedom and confidence to call things as we see them.
Free speech is a good thing even if I disagree with you on the largely superficial "character" issue. I challenge you to define it in a way that doesn't include Teddy R. as a man of low character.
Unsubscribing because you state your position and reasoning is the sign of a mind that lacks humility. For goodness sake, discussions such as this one require argumentation. Finding you wanting because you disagree on reasoning is awful. I'm sorry that you are a part of our increasing division and lack of good will.
Trump will restore our freedoms: Freedom of speech, no longer cancelled for speaking against net zero, freedom to drive the car we want, to use the stove we want, freedom to frack, freedom to drill on government land, freedom to import and export LNG, freedom from being taxed to support illegal immigrants, freedom from the danger of electrical grid failure. I could go on but you get the idea.
The comments tell me nothing has changed. If we don’t see that the division in our country weakens us. Why not stop attacking each other and give the man a chance. Covid was mishandled by both parties at the national level by the way.
Division is a normal consequence of freedom of speech and democracy. The US has always been deeply divided. Up to 1860 slavery deeply divided us. In the late 19th Century control of the country by malefactors of great wealth divided us. Teddy R. pretty much settled that division by winning. More recently the advent of a truly racist form of cultural Marxism has resulted in deep division and pushback. We may be more united once this anti-American and reality denying ideology is defeated. Until then buckle up and boycott the regime media by reading alternative media as Roger suggests.
Roger, am I correct in assuming that your prediction of a Harris win, with somewhere between 276 and 312 electoral votes, was driven by published opinion polls in which you placed trust? There is an excellent op-ed article in today's Wall Street Journal, p. A15, by Dr. Michael Segal. He points out that all polls quote a "margin of error" number in percentage points but very few of them quote a figure for their response rate, the percentage of people who actually respond to their request for an opinion. Segal points out that the last New York Times/Siena polls received a response from only 2% of the people they contacted. So the potential for sampling error, undersampling or oversampling, is huge. In future, demanding a figure for response rate might help you, and all of us, better judge the reliability of any given poll.
Public opinion polling is another institution that was well suited to the mid 20th Century America. With the advent of the internet and social media, the pollsters need to come up with a new way of connecting to the public. Most working class people or highly educated Conservatives like myself don't have time to do a long polling interview.
You might also benefit from looking at Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi. They were 2 journalists who broke the Twitter Files. Schellenberger is a real advocate for free speech.
I disagree with your long quote. Reducing emissions is like virginity in the Middle Ages. Most pay lip service to it but have no intention of doing it themselves. In any case, the developing world rightly is going to prioritize other things. The best we can hope for is to switch to natural gas as much as possible and start a program of nuclear power plants. There will also be big benefits of a warmer world including large increases in ecosystem productivity.
I also think they are underestimating the negative effects of mass migration on American wages and public services. This issue is also like virginity in the Middle Ages. It is required to pay lip service to mass migration while no one volunteers to have the "newcomers" (who don't speak English or have real skills) camping out on their lawn or in their neighborhood. It is another way the elite transfer the pain of their virtue signaling to the working classes.
In fact, the realignment of the parties will probably last for decades. Trump made the Republican party a multi-ethnic working class party. The other thing that has happened (and Megyn Kelly is excellent on this) is that cultural Marxism has turned men against the Democrat party. They are paying the price for the gender science denial scam and the "believe all women" lies. The left is too deeply embedded in their alternative reality to change quickly. Trump was smart enough to pick up on these trends. Like Teddy Roosevelt before him (whose personality was like Trump's in many ways) Trump is a deep threat to our corrupt elites. That is why the regime media waged the most deeply dishonest propaganda campaign against him in American history. Some of our elites need to feel the pain of being prosecuted too.
Trump has surrounded himself with genuine reformers who could reform the corrupt elites, particularly the deep state and the regime media. It will be uncomfortable for these elites just as Teddy's trust busting was deeply painful to the elites of his day. But ordinary people know it is needed.
Schellenberger had a great substack last week pointing out that regardless of who won the election, Trump has already won the argument against the regime media whose influence is at record low levels. The alternative media is growing by leaps and bounds.
Much of this election in my opinion simply came down to the economy, and even James Carville who famously said in 1992, "It's the economy stupid", didn't quite pick up on it. Granted, the economy isn't as bad as Trump and Republicans were claiming, but grocery store prices and most everything else has seen an increase. But now comes the complexity of life these days: perceptions are real...but, I have to wonder how much Russia's meddling by disseminating misinformation affects people's perceptions? I read Christopher Wylie's Mind F*ck years ago, and that shook me to the core, and has me wondering if we will ever not have a contested election or unified country.
Time to retire the Russia's meddling hoax - the Dems spent $1.6 billion getting out their losing message. I don't think any Russian meddling had any impact. I noticed no mention the UK Labour party sending nearly 100 people to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania & Virginia to help the Harris campaign (see LinkedIn post from Sofia Patel, head of UK Labour's Head of Operations). They explained this away by saying it's been going on for decades so foreign influence in our elections is ok if it is to help the Dems?
BTW, the US security state does plenty of overseas meddling.
Regarding "...to design policies that serve the interests of normal people which also have the side benefit of accelerating decarbonization..." Could this be rewritten as: "To design full life cycle policies that serve the interests of normal people in the world (over 2 Billion of which which face 'existential' extinction within 1 to 5 years due to economy-attributed and energy-attributed lack of shelter protecting from disasters, food, clean water, clean living-space air, medical help) which also have the benefit of protecting them from real immediate dangerous Climate and Climate Change impacts on their lives.
Nice column, thank you. Several decades ago, when you were in graduate school, the State of Texas tried to develop a low-level radioactive waste disposal site under the provisions of the LLRWPA Amendments Act of 1985. Texas' efforts were met with the usual frustrations, obfuscations, and litigations. In a speech before ANS, Douglas Bell, who was the head of the Texas commission responsible for development, said that "our scientific community cannot ignore politics any longer. We must find scientific solutions to technical problems that are acceptable to the politicians. It may be time to find solutions that do not depend on inexact sciences..." It is that very approach that is needed in climate science today!
There have been several within this thread who have expressed displeasure with your political views and suggested you stick to climate policy. With due respect to those commentors, I disagree. I don't always agree with you politically, but your views in the "roundabout" of climate science, climate policy, and politics are critical components of the needed discussion that will eventually result in good science informing good policy. Like Mike Hulme has said, "in disagreement there is learning." So please, continue to stretch us politically. We may not agree, but we can certainly learn.
Believe it or not, my vote was ultimately informed by your Iron Law of Climate. Like you, I value character, and Trump is an arrogant ass. But to say Ms Harris is of good character is akin to saying Stormy Daniels is an A-list actress. So the character comparison became a matter-antimatter annihilation.
We are a fixed income family, and inflation has shortened our expectations. Biden/Harris' energy policies were a leading cause of that inflation. Her campaign promises did nothing to assuage my concerns for energy, and thus my pocket book. Had the democratic candidate refuted the green new deal and the climate catastrophist's constant ravings, my vote might have been different. As you say, sir, economic growth will win every time.
Like it or not, we've got him, whether we want him or not. All we can do now is pray for better leadership.
Thanks again for your work at THB. My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
• Independent media were big winners; the MSM were huge losers. It will be interesting how the owners of these companies respond.
• I think you and Teixera, et al. are far too sanguine about the Dems regaining their old roots. KH was an abysmal candidate whom they can scapegoat (worst Dem campaign since George McGovern). They can blame her for a lack of enthusiasm resulting in voter turnout well below 2020's total. The Silicon Valley and other billionaire Dem funders also don't seem very interested in the plight of the common man. Further, Rubio and others have been quietly working the same patch for the GOP for a few years now. Vance (or someone) likely will continue to mine this vein in 2028. When the US Chamber of Commerce (and many of those billionaires) chose to "go Dem, go Woke" it helped the GOP to become more populist.
• One other potentially positive note - the election showed that $$$ didn't mean as much for electability as we thought it did.
I find the last paragraph in your article disturbing.
“ Democrats would do well to design policies that serve the interests of normal people which also have the side benefit of accelerating decarbonization. That means turning climate from a special interest valued by the cultural elite into something largely invisible to most people, and folded into implementation of policies that make people better off — on their own terms.”
You completely misunderstood the outcome of the election. First of all, what you cite “character” as a criteria for the election. Perhaps it was, but not the way you think. A party that tries to remove an opponent through phony litigation doesn’t represent “character”.
Second, you describe turning climate policy into “”something largely invisible to most people”. Step back and reread that sentence. A large part of the population has figured out these “invisible” policies have been detrimental to them. That’s why they don’t trust government.
If you can’t persuade the public on climate policy, perhaps it isn’t good policy.
I agree Steve. Like him or not Trump's personality resembles that of Teddy Roosevelt. Both men caused panic among the elites of their day and Trump has a change to create fundamental change by reigning in the elites just a Roosevelt did with his trust busting. Teddy was arrogant and often insulting but was beloved by ordinary people. So is Trump. This character issue is really about form over substance and I'm surprised Roger hasn't thought more deeply about it.
At some point Mr Pielke, please give us your opinion on the Electoral College. From a policy perspective, of course. To me, it violates the principal of one man one vote and should be eliminated.
This tells me your education was sorely lacking either due to a curriculum that ignored the founding of this country or your decision not to pay attention in class. Even a casual reading of this nation's history would reveal the founders were very concerned about tyranny - either via a solitary executive or the "tyranny of the majority". Low population states did not want national policy driven exclusively by larger states. Hence the compromise with two legislative chambers - one based on population (the house) and one where all states were equal (the senate). The electoral college essentially mirrors the combination of the two chambers. A rather elegant solution to the problem in my opinion.
Oh brilliant one...whose nom de guerre is one of my favorite movies. Lee, below, mentions that we have made changes in the constitution. It's a living document. The Founding Fathers were an amazing collection of men who made compromises necessary for the country to endure. But they are not G-Ds. Thus, amendments. So, top of the class guy, what was once an elegant solution, is not necessary anymore. And is actually harmful. When candidates spend most of their time, and treasure on 7 states, none of them among the four most populous, that is not a good thing.
The US wasn't ever set up as "one man one vote" -- although the "white man" part of it is truer than a more general interpretation of the saying. People say this is a principle, but it isn't a principle here. First, the country never would have been formed if protections for Rights, the Constitution, and weighing extra for each smaller State weren't initially agreed to. It's a constitutional democratic republic. Black men were added later. Women after that. There are some pure democracy around the world, but this isn't one of them and we have been relativelly successful.
Well Roger this IS unusual, with more than twice as many comments as likes. We are facing a rare Congressional term in which one party has both houses (perhaps) and the presidency. The last time was Obama's first term. The Dems paid off a lot of their constituencies, assuring that they got the boot from the house two years later. This is an established pattern, wonderfully detailed by Morris P. Fiorina in his book Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate published in 2017.
I don't see this so much as an "incredible realignment". It is an example of what happens when the party in power drifts to far from the values of most Americans. This election is more about saying no than about saying yes.
Well, this is explicitly a comment post. I am happy to host forums for THB subscribers to engage with me and each other. I'd guess that the person commenting most on this thread is me in response to all sorts of comments - some in agreement with views of mine, others not. Which is the point of conversation -- achieving disagreement while valuing a community. It is not a battle for likes, clicks, or debate victory, but a healthy exchange of views that differ.
I really admire and appreciate your commitment to that gestalt.
Folks upset about this post should head over to The Dispatch
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/boilingfrogs/you-broke-it-you-bought-it/
Roger, I don't mean to be preachy and you probably don't want coaching from me but you have a talent for coming across as condescending in a number of your discussions here. I'm not sure why you feel the need to tweak noses quite so much today. Could it maybe have something to do with the results of the election?
What are you referring to?
Two immediate thoughts and they are without doubt true.
1. Harris is not a person of high character. She is a chameleon whose career has been elevated due to her chosen identity of the moment combined with California's infamously neo- liberal voter base and state government. The idea that she has had profound misgivings about her former positions on substantive issues is utterly fatuous and grasping.
2. The Democrat party and leadership alongside the American punditry have become detached from the reality of working class Americans and conservatism. The notion that Dems suffer because they are degreed missed the point. They suffer because the educated classes are so often lacking in humility and interested in addressing difficult problems with anything other than platitudes and derision of their philosophical opponents.
Roger
You have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with this post. I respect that and I hope that most people who support you can "cope" with some views that differ to theirs.
I'm not American voter..so I'm only an onlooker.
If I'd had a vote, I would have voted Trump. The why is mainly down to my "gut feel " and belief that the world needs a capable ( interpret that as you will) US President right now.
You also shared an early comment of yours:
"The core problem facing Democrats, in my view, is that they have become a party of the wealthy and the highly educated. . . The basic problem here for Democrats is simple electoral math. There are a lot more voters who do not have college degrees than do".
That comment suggests that smarter,more educated and wealthier people vote democrat. Clearly they aren't that smart!
I count myself as well off, probably more so than 90% of democrat voters.
To be candid, I don't trust politicians...full stop ( period for our American friends :)...but I feel the Democrats were presiding over the demise of Rome.
Keep up the good work..thank God this only happens every 4 years!!😂
Thanks Chris!
True story
A million years ago (30 actually) I was about to submit for publication a journal paper derived from my PhD dissertation (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01000820)
I shared a draft with higher-ups at NCAR and the NSF, which funded NCAR.
All hell broke loose because I was critical of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as being justified on its policy relevance but organized to advance science., with little connection to the needs of policy makers.
There was a huge debate over whether I should be allowed to publish it, because my criticism might somehow hurt the funding of climate research.
Obviously, it was eventually published.
At that time I decided I would never bend to the demands of funders that I tailor or censor my research based on their perceived interests.
So THB readers who (threaten to) unsubscribe based on my sincerely-held views are not going to get me to change my views or my writing. Subscribing requires a choice and I appreciate and respect every subscriber. It is humbling and motivating.
Of course, this also is one of the wonderful things about Substack - No author is beholden to any one subscriber. That gives me and other writers much more freedom and confidence to call things as we see them.
That is also what THB subscribers deserve.
Roger, please don't change anything. The THB is one of my main reasons to get up and read in the morning!!!
Free speech is a good thing even if I disagree with you on the largely superficial "character" issue. I challenge you to define it in a way that doesn't include Teddy R. as a man of low character.
Unsubscribing because you state your position and reasoning is the sign of a mind that lacks humility. For goodness sake, discussions such as this one require argumentation. Finding you wanting because you disagree on reasoning is awful. I'm sorry that you are a part of our increasing division and lack of good will.
Trump will restore our freedoms: Freedom of speech, no longer cancelled for speaking against net zero, freedom to drive the car we want, to use the stove we want, freedom to frack, freedom to drill on government land, freedom to import and export LNG, freedom from being taxed to support illegal immigrants, freedom from the danger of electrical grid failure. I could go on but you get the idea.
The comments tell me nothing has changed. If we don’t see that the division in our country weakens us. Why not stop attacking each other and give the man a chance. Covid was mishandled by both parties at the national level by the way.
Yes, I've been very clear about both Trump and Biden administration failures
Division is a normal consequence of freedom of speech and democracy. The US has always been deeply divided. Up to 1860 slavery deeply divided us. In the late 19th Century control of the country by malefactors of great wealth divided us. Teddy R. pretty much settled that division by winning. More recently the advent of a truly racist form of cultural Marxism has resulted in deep division and pushback. We may be more united once this anti-American and reality denying ideology is defeated. Until then buckle up and boycott the regime media by reading alternative media as Roger suggests.
Roger, am I correct in assuming that your prediction of a Harris win, with somewhere between 276 and 312 electoral votes, was driven by published opinion polls in which you placed trust? There is an excellent op-ed article in today's Wall Street Journal, p. A15, by Dr. Michael Segal. He points out that all polls quote a "margin of error" number in percentage points but very few of them quote a figure for their response rate, the percentage of people who actually respond to their request for an opinion. Segal points out that the last New York Times/Siena polls received a response from only 2% of the people they contacted. So the potential for sampling error, undersampling or oversampling, is huge. In future, demanding a figure for response rate might help you, and all of us, better judge the reliability of any given poll.
Public opinion polling is another institution that was well suited to the mid 20th Century America. With the advent of the internet and social media, the pollsters need to come up with a new way of connecting to the public. Most working class people or highly educated Conservatives like myself don't have time to do a long polling interview.
You might also benefit from looking at Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi. They were 2 journalists who broke the Twitter Files. Schellenberger is a real advocate for free speech.
I disagree with your long quote. Reducing emissions is like virginity in the Middle Ages. Most pay lip service to it but have no intention of doing it themselves. In any case, the developing world rightly is going to prioritize other things. The best we can hope for is to switch to natural gas as much as possible and start a program of nuclear power plants. There will also be big benefits of a warmer world including large increases in ecosystem productivity.
I also think they are underestimating the negative effects of mass migration on American wages and public services. This issue is also like virginity in the Middle Ages. It is required to pay lip service to mass migration while no one volunteers to have the "newcomers" (who don't speak English or have real skills) camping out on their lawn or in their neighborhood. It is another way the elite transfer the pain of their virtue signaling to the working classes.
In fact, the realignment of the parties will probably last for decades. Trump made the Republican party a multi-ethnic working class party. The other thing that has happened (and Megyn Kelly is excellent on this) is that cultural Marxism has turned men against the Democrat party. They are paying the price for the gender science denial scam and the "believe all women" lies. The left is too deeply embedded in their alternative reality to change quickly. Trump was smart enough to pick up on these trends. Like Teddy Roosevelt before him (whose personality was like Trump's in many ways) Trump is a deep threat to our corrupt elites. That is why the regime media waged the most deeply dishonest propaganda campaign against him in American history. Some of our elites need to feel the pain of being prosecuted too.
Trump has surrounded himself with genuine reformers who could reform the corrupt elites, particularly the deep state and the regime media. It will be uncomfortable for these elites just as Teddy's trust busting was deeply painful to the elites of his day. But ordinary people know it is needed.
Schellenberger had a great substack last week pointing out that regardless of who won the election, Trump has already won the argument against the regime media whose influence is at record low levels. The alternative media is growing by leaps and bounds.
Much of this election in my opinion simply came down to the economy, and even James Carville who famously said in 1992, "It's the economy stupid", didn't quite pick up on it. Granted, the economy isn't as bad as Trump and Republicans were claiming, but grocery store prices and most everything else has seen an increase. But now comes the complexity of life these days: perceptions are real...but, I have to wonder how much Russia's meddling by disseminating misinformation affects people's perceptions? I read Christopher Wylie's Mind F*ck years ago, and that shook me to the core, and has me wondering if we will ever not have a contested election or unified country.
Time to retire the Russia's meddling hoax - the Dems spent $1.6 billion getting out their losing message. I don't think any Russian meddling had any impact. I noticed no mention the UK Labour party sending nearly 100 people to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania & Virginia to help the Harris campaign (see LinkedIn post from Sofia Patel, head of UK Labour's Head of Operations). They explained this away by saying it's been going on for decades so foreign influence in our elections is ok if it is to help the Dems?
BTW, the US security state does plenty of overseas meddling.
Regarding "...to design policies that serve the interests of normal people which also have the side benefit of accelerating decarbonization..." Could this be rewritten as: "To design full life cycle policies that serve the interests of normal people in the world (over 2 Billion of which which face 'existential' extinction within 1 to 5 years due to economy-attributed and energy-attributed lack of shelter protecting from disasters, food, clean water, clean living-space air, medical help) which also have the benefit of protecting them from real immediate dangerous Climate and Climate Change impacts on their lives.
Nice column, thank you. Several decades ago, when you were in graduate school, the State of Texas tried to develop a low-level radioactive waste disposal site under the provisions of the LLRWPA Amendments Act of 1985. Texas' efforts were met with the usual frustrations, obfuscations, and litigations. In a speech before ANS, Douglas Bell, who was the head of the Texas commission responsible for development, said that "our scientific community cannot ignore politics any longer. We must find scientific solutions to technical problems that are acceptable to the politicians. It may be time to find solutions that do not depend on inexact sciences..." It is that very approach that is needed in climate science today!
There have been several within this thread who have expressed displeasure with your political views and suggested you stick to climate policy. With due respect to those commentors, I disagree. I don't always agree with you politically, but your views in the "roundabout" of climate science, climate policy, and politics are critical components of the needed discussion that will eventually result in good science informing good policy. Like Mike Hulme has said, "in disagreement there is learning." So please, continue to stretch us politically. We may not agree, but we can certainly learn.
Believe it or not, my vote was ultimately informed by your Iron Law of Climate. Like you, I value character, and Trump is an arrogant ass. But to say Ms Harris is of good character is akin to saying Stormy Daniels is an A-list actress. So the character comparison became a matter-antimatter annihilation.
We are a fixed income family, and inflation has shortened our expectations. Biden/Harris' energy policies were a leading cause of that inflation. Her campaign promises did nothing to assuage my concerns for energy, and thus my pocket book. Had the democratic candidate refuted the green new deal and the climate catastrophist's constant ravings, my vote might have been different. As you say, sir, economic growth will win every time.
Like it or not, we've got him, whether we want him or not. All we can do now is pray for better leadership.
Thanks again for your work at THB. My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Teddy Roosevelt was also an ass, but he was effective at remaking the American system.
Thanks!
You're very welcome!
• Independent media were big winners; the MSM were huge losers. It will be interesting how the owners of these companies respond.
• I think you and Teixera, et al. are far too sanguine about the Dems regaining their old roots. KH was an abysmal candidate whom they can scapegoat (worst Dem campaign since George McGovern). They can blame her for a lack of enthusiasm resulting in voter turnout well below 2020's total. The Silicon Valley and other billionaire Dem funders also don't seem very interested in the plight of the common man. Further, Rubio and others have been quietly working the same patch for the GOP for a few years now. Vance (or someone) likely will continue to mine this vein in 2028. When the US Chamber of Commerce (and many of those billionaires) chose to "go Dem, go Woke" it helped the GOP to become more populist.
• One other potentially positive note - the election showed that $$$ didn't mean as much for electability as we thought it did.
I find the last paragraph in your article disturbing.
“ Democrats would do well to design policies that serve the interests of normal people which also have the side benefit of accelerating decarbonization. That means turning climate from a special interest valued by the cultural elite into something largely invisible to most people, and folded into implementation of policies that make people better off — on their own terms.”
You completely misunderstood the outcome of the election. First of all, what you cite “character” as a criteria for the election. Perhaps it was, but not the way you think. A party that tries to remove an opponent through phony litigation doesn’t represent “character”.
Second, you describe turning climate policy into “”something largely invisible to most people”. Step back and reread that sentence. A large part of the population has figured out these “invisible” policies have been detrimental to them. That’s why they don’t trust government.
If you can’t persuade the public on climate policy, perhaps it isn’t good policy.
I agree Steve. Like him or not Trump's personality resembles that of Teddy Roosevelt. Both men caused panic among the elites of their day and Trump has a change to create fundamental change by reigning in the elites just a Roosevelt did with his trust busting. Teddy was arrogant and often insulting but was beloved by ordinary people. So is Trump. This character issue is really about form over substance and I'm surprised Roger hasn't thought more deeply about it.
At some point Mr Pielke, please give us your opinion on the Electoral College. From a policy perspective, of course. To me, it violates the principal of one man one vote and should be eliminated.
This tells me your education was sorely lacking either due to a curriculum that ignored the founding of this country or your decision not to pay attention in class. Even a casual reading of this nation's history would reveal the founders were very concerned about tyranny - either via a solitary executive or the "tyranny of the majority". Low population states did not want national policy driven exclusively by larger states. Hence the compromise with two legislative chambers - one based on population (the house) and one where all states were equal (the senate). The electoral college essentially mirrors the combination of the two chambers. A rather elegant solution to the problem in my opinion.
Oh brilliant one...whose nom de guerre is one of my favorite movies. Lee, below, mentions that we have made changes in the constitution. It's a living document. The Founding Fathers were an amazing collection of men who made compromises necessary for the country to endure. But they are not G-Ds. Thus, amendments. So, top of the class guy, what was once an elegant solution, is not necessary anymore. And is actually harmful. When candidates spend most of their time, and treasure on 7 states, none of them among the four most populous, that is not a good thing.
The US wasn't ever set up as "one man one vote" -- although the "white man" part of it is truer than a more general interpretation of the saying. People say this is a principle, but it isn't a principle here. First, the country never would have been formed if protections for Rights, the Constitution, and weighing extra for each smaller State weren't initially agreed to. It's a constitutional democratic republic. Black men were added later. Women after that. There are some pure democracy around the world, but this isn't one of them and we have been relativelly successful.
In a way it was designed to make it difficult to make big changes and that has served us well.