Escondido, CA

The Mean New Deal

Whenever the Democrats feel a disconnect with voters, or when one of their initiatives fails to gain traction (i.e., the election of Queen Hillary or the destruction of Brett Kavanagh) they always come back with some gargantuan new social justice proposal, designed to steal any sunlight the Republicans may have garnered. 

With Donald Trump in the White House, Democrats have had to dream up a series of New Deals because every time they turn around, he is standing in their limelight. There hasn’t been anyone as good at hogging the limelight since P.T. Barnum.

So now some of the most zealous Progressives have rolled out the Green New Deal. Obviously, the term New Deal is supposed to capture some of the charm and positive connotations of President Roosevelt’s 1933 economic recovery act that was designed to reignite the nearly destitute state of affairs following the Great Depression.

Part of the strategy of the sponsoring House Democrats (led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) is to imply that the current US economy is in a great depression under Donald Trump, and of course we already know, that without immediate “Chicken Little the Sky Is Falling” drastic action, the world as we know it will end in 12 years. That only white rich people are enjoying the booming stock market, the tremendous resurgence in employment for all Americans, and an increasing sense that the country is moving in the right direction again. 

To obscure the fact that many manufacturers are moving production back onshore after years of flight to low wage third-world countries, Progressives are saying a Green New Deal will overcome the unfairness and miscarriage of justice that Trump’s economic programs have established at the expense of blacks, women and illegal immigrants.

As I have said over and over, Progressivism is just a mitigating term for neo-communism. And the Green New Deal is just an Orwellian term for wrapping environmentalism and collectivist economic extremism into a Mao-style cultural revolution bent on destroying Trump’s Americanism movement.

Since taking office, Trump has made it his priority to undo all of Obama’s regulations and incentives for institutionalizing climate change and disengaging from unfair and impractical trade agreements. He has asserted these American-centric policies would immediately free up investment and momentum, and return billions of offshore profits to the American economy. And that alone has outraged environmentalists and Progressive leaders who are bent on purging America of what they consider a dependence on fossil fuels, on economic principles of capitalism and on white male privilege.

But just like Mao’s collectivist policies that were responsible for the greatest famine in human history, starving nearly forty million Chinese citizens to death, the latest Progressive proposal would destroy America’s position of world leadership. It would essentially send us back to the dark ages: The Green New Deal would outlaw air travel, guarantee wages and jobs and provide basic income even for those who refuse to work. It would force displaced ‘workers’ into re-education/training programs, and then embark on a massive reconstruction and remodeling job on all levels of industry and private life that had previously relied on fossil fuels. It would, by necessity, replace free enterprise with government central planning.

Just as Mao called his consolidation of power The Great Leap Forward, Progressives say the Green New Deal will be our own Great Leap Forward.

The problem with all this “theory” is that reality and theory have no intersection. Putting all of these goals into a 12 year target ignores the fact that the human race could not supply its food or energy needs without fossil fuels no matter how quickly we develop wind, solar, water, or other energy sources. Leftists conveniently forget that none of those forms of energy can be captured and stored efficiently, so the production has to be at the time and location it is needed. If wind power could be stored and shipped around the world, we could load up the North and South poles with windmills and be done with it.

Studies show that our world will be somewhat dependent on fossil fuels for at least another 50 years, unless science invents something unforeseen. This is because the sheer volume of source materials required to drive the engines of production needed to farm, to heat, to move and to feed people across the planet cannot be met with renewables alone.

Besides, science and industry are quickly moving us all in that direction anyway.

Sadly, Progressives are never satisfied with the status quo. Why? Because that would deny them the vehicle they need to acquire political power (not electrical power.) Only when large numbers of people are scared and agitated can they lasso them into a political force that gives them the legislative power needed to keep their globalist, one-world government dreamteam aristocracy in place and to redistribute wealth to keep their constituents satiated. And that is not a slam on poor people. Democrats are increasingly made up of well-paid government employees, and they need to grow their share of the public pie.

Just like Mao did when he used a misnomer to rename China The People’s “Republic” of China, Progressives masquerade themselves with social justice issues. But ultimately many of their most loyal supporters eventually get thrown under the bus of “Progress.” Many of those identified as the beneficiaries of cheaper energy, new jobs and a more egalitarian culture, will find themselves once again victimized by confiscatory government policies, loss of freedoms and incentives, and a race to the lowest common denominator. 

That’s why the Democrats new social elixir is not a Green New Deal, it is in reality a Mean New Deal.

Rick Elkin is a longtime Escondido resident, an author, columnist and cultural observer. His most recent book Trump’s Reckoning: Bulldozing Progressivism, Rebuilding Americanism is available online. You can follow his blog at

*Note: Opinions expressed by columnists and letter writers are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the newspaper.

Leave a Reply

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