No images? Click here Barely Gettin' By Not every disagreement is a fightIt might already seem like the distant past, but the Vice Presidential debate—held only a fortnight ago—revealed a great deal about the state of American politics. All the talk of “civility” and the starring role played by a wayward insect obscured some significant discussions of actual policy, and the quiet but crucial role climate change is playing in this election cycle. Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has an extremely difficult role to play. While she’s walking the tightrope of being a black woman in public, along with Joe Biden, she’s faced with the task of reconciling very different views about climate, energy and environmental policy within both her own party and the wider electorate she’s trying to woo. During the Presidential debate the week before (in the few moments where we could actually hear anything) Donald Trump tried to wedge Biden on the old ‘economy versus the climate’ debate and pin him to the ‘radical Green New Deal’. Trump was following the usual conservative playbook, arguing that the GND is coming for Americans’ hamburgers. Biden was quick to respond that ‘the Green New Deal is not my plan’. But—considering what has come before it—Biden’s environmental plan is radical. The ‘Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice’ commits the Democratic ticket to the construction of ‘100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050.’ The Plan itself states that ‘Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.’ Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks on the Green New Deal with Senator Ed Markey, February 7 2019 That’s why Kamala Harris’ repeated and firm insistence during the VP debate that ‘Joe Biden will not ban fracking’ stood out. It isn’t mentioned anywhere in Biden’s Clean Energy Plan, and for good reason. Fracking—the process of drilling into shale rock and injecting a mix of water and chemicals to release gas and oil that would otherwise be very difficult to access—is an environmental disaster. The fracking boom in the US, in addition to using huge amounts of water, causing tremors, and leaking carcinogenic chemicals into groundwater, is also a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the fracking boom has driven up domestic oil production and become the centre of arguments about ‘energy independence’ and the question of jobs versus the environment. Trump and Republicans are claiming that Biden will ban fracking because they think it will help them electorally, especially in the crucial state of Pennsylvania. The Biden campaign, apparently, agrees. In 2016, Trump beat Hilary Clinton in Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes. The state is widely regarded as critical to either side’s chances this November. This week, CNN even suggested it is ‘highly plausible’ that the state could be Trump's only path to an Electoral College victory. In western Pennsylvania, the construction of the massive Mariner East pipeline—which will transport liquid gas from shale fields to refineries before it is shipped offshore—has focused the minds of both parties on fracking. There are big questions, though, about just how much of an election issue fracking actually is in Pennsylvania. Like the rest of the US, the state has been ravaged by coronavirus and economic recession, and voters there are extremely concerned about climate change. The Biden campaign’s focus on fracking, and their insistence that it continue in states like Pennsylvania, leaves Democrats exposed on all sides. Harris' repeated line that ‘Joe Biden will not ban fracking’ echoed all too closely the Australian Labor Party’s commitment to Adani in Queensland, and its utter failure to prosecute the contradictory argument that it is both serious about climate change and supportive of massive, environmentally disastrous fossil fuel extraction projects. Just like in Australia, the press in the United States has zeroed in on this contradiction, spoiling for a fight within the left. Only this time, it doesn’t seem to have worked. In the US at least, the left doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. That’s because the progressive side of politics—both within and outside the Democratic party—is not as immature as many self-described centrist pundits make out. Notwithstanding some, internal debates, it has, for some time now, been very clear and disciplined on tactics. Dakota Access Pipeline protest in San Francisco, November 15 2016 For most of the organised left today, political strategy is two-tiered: first, get Trump out. That means voting for Joe Biden. Second, push for a more radical Biden administration—which is something progressive elements have already been doing, with great success. On the left, the debate centers on whether to work in coalition with Democrats, or to take on a more confrontational strategy. Arguably, at the moment, progressive elements are successfully doing both. Radical protest movements such as NoDAPL (the Dakota Access Pipeline protest) and the Sunrise Movement work on the outside while simultaneously supporting incredibly successful young and diverse candidates on their way into office. During the debate, one of the most prominent of those young representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted ‘Fracking is bad, actually’. While responding to her own party’s VP candidate in real time like that is of course confrontational, AOC also embodies the maturity of a political strategy that is all too aware that ‘not every disagreement is a fight’, as she put it in her reflections on the recent Democratic National Convention. Disagreement and confrontation shouldn’t, of necessity, test progressive loyalties to breaking point. They should be a sign of a politics that’s always trying to improve itself—another, overdue lesson for Australia’s progressive parties. What all this shows is that the political terrain is shifting, and shifting fast. The young progressive base of American politics is successfully pushing Democrats to previously unthinkable policy positions. A little over a year ago, party elders were dismissing the GND as ‘the green dream or whatever.’ Today, it’s a ‘crucial framework.’ While the economy versus the environment debate is not dead yet, perhaps it is a sign that the undeniable reality of environmental, economic and racial injustice, might mean, finally, a recognition that politics-as-usual has no place on a warming world. — |