,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
When we say that climate change academics, protesters, journalists and politicians are actively anti-democratic, and that dismantling democracy has *always* been the central aim of the green agenda, we are not making it up. foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/20/dem…
Some, this chap for example, think my tweet was unfair, that Runciman isn't calling for the dismantling of democracy.
He is...
He is...
For that claim to be sustained, one has to agree:
1. That Greta speaks for a generation.
2. That Greta's views have not been given a hearing before or since her appearance.
3. That the other parties in the inter-generational conflict had an opportunity to express their view...
1. That Greta speaks for a generation.
2. That Greta's views have not been given a hearing before or since her appearance.
3. That the other parties in the inter-generational conflict had an opportunity to express their view...
4. That the other parties have expressed that view.
All of those claims are unsustainable. The facts are:
All of those claims are unsustainable. The facts are:
1. Nobody can claim that Greta speaks on behalf of a generation, not her, not the green blob that has elevated her, not the creepy politicians who fawn all over her, and not the tired old hackademic from Cambridge.
2. Greta's views are the subject of a cross-party political consensus, and have been for a long time, despite public opinion. It is the dominant and illegitimate prevailing ideology/orthodoxy of local, regional, national and supranational governments.
3. The other side in Runciman's imaginary inter-generational conflict have *NEVER* been given the opportunity to express their view on the dominant political agenda. It is that generation, then, if any, that has been excluded from politics, not Greta's.
4. Runciman, Greta, and the poltical establishment thus live on the wrong side of a widening democratic deficit, and have to imagine ways to adjust democracy, if only to convince themselves that they aren't dangerous weirdos.
