Thread by @ScipioAcheronus

"You’re trying in every way you can to eliminate political oxygen for prospective allies who are interested in exploring different paths."

This is the most interesting critique I see in the article. (messy thread - it'd be tighter but no time, sorry)
1/
niskanencenter.org/blog/an-open-l…

To the extent that GND proponents are mandating the goals of an aggressive and just energy transition, but are negotiable on specific means ("here is our plan, either sign on or come up w/ a good alternative"), then the snark and scolding seems totally unjustified to me
2/

But to the extent that politicians are forced to "bend the knee" to the specific GND resolution or title, that could ultimately be a big problem. If a politician gets no progressive credit (or worse, active animosity) for proposing alternatives, it's like imposing a veto gate.
3/

"Either sign on to my specific program, or you will be fought tooth and nail" gives two clear options for the electorally-inclined: "Submit," or "Reject." The third option of "Counteroffer" may become electorally synonymous with "Reject," so incentives to do it are muddy.
4/

GND movement could be "successful" in 2021 (assuming 2020 goes well for Dems) in basically two ways:
1) The true "The Green New Deal" gets passed (i.e. whatever its proponents & base are pushing for), or

2) A messier compromise climate bill is passed that otherwise wouldn't
5/

If you think that #1 is likely or necessary, a "my way or the highway" approach is clearly the best. No alternative will do the trick, so no compromise should be tolerated

If you are secretly rooting for (or can't imagine anything other than) #2 though, it's more complicated
6/

#2 will only happen if the new energy for climate policy brought about through the Green New Deal enthusiasm (and climate reality-- counterfactuals w/out GND are unknowable) causes politicians to decide to move on climate, but the GND specifics are rejected for an alternative
7/

If alternatives are actively fought and politicians are punished for proposing them, however, it would have to be something like the GND proponents have sufficient power to activate the public & elites on goals, but insufficient power to punish those who disagree on means.
8/

An example would be that your marginal Democratic Senator feels electoral push & incentive from her constituency to do "something" on climate b/c GND has elevated climate as a priority, but needn't fear the GND activists themselves, so Senator pushes for an alternative.
9/

This is one possibility. The GND has been powerful in that it elevated climate goals, but it will not so dictate the path as to lead climate hawk politicians down the road to ruin. In other words, the GND proponents have activated lots of folks who aren't GND-specific diehards
10

The other possibility is that the GND has activated a lot of people, but a substantial chunk of them are GND diehards who will punish "heretics." So electorally, moving a non-GND climate bill is the same or worse as simply remaining noncommittal and doing nothing, or rejecting
11

If a critical # of GND actors are playing harball "my way or the highway," & if they have sufficient power to punish competitors such that there's little incentive to propose alternative progressive climate bills, & if GND proper won't work, then @jerry_jtaylor may be right.
/END