Climate change and the politics of conviction
[Ed. note: Please welcome to C&L our old friend and erstwhile congressional candidate from Washington's 8th District, Darcy Burner. Darcy's now heading up Progressive Congress, and we hope to have her contribute posts as often as she's willing and able. -- DN]
We talk a lot about wanting representatives who will display courage and conviction. But the real test of that isn’t what they do when it’s easy – it’s what they do when it’s hard.
**
When I was running for Congress, my son Henry would take every opportunity he could to talk about climate change. He talked to me, he talked to Democrats at legislative district meetings, he grabbed the microphone if he saw TV cameras. He used my webcam two years ago to cut this video:
Today the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Waxman-Markey energy bill, the most significant climate change legislation in history. It establishes a cap-and-trade regulatory system designed to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere over the next several years.
Today's bill is, alas, a deeply flawed and compromised bill. There are provisions related to coal and nuclear energy that I don’t agree with; the renewable energy standard provisions aren’t as aggressive as I and most progressives would like; and a significant percentage of the carbon credits are given away to polluters rather than being auctioned off for the public good.
But it also puts in place the first framework in our history for addressing the carbon emissions that are central to catastrophic climate change.
The disagreements among progressives on this are not about whether we need to address climate change, nor about whether this is a flawed bill, but instead about what the outcome will be if this vote fails today. Would we get a better bill? Would we get a worse bill? Would we get no bill?
It's not clear to me which side has the better strategic read. But it is clear to me that there are Members in very tough districts who are about to risk their chances of re-election because their convictions will lead them to vote in a way that is politically damaging to them – people like Congressman Tom Perriello.
Those are exactly the people we want to keep in Congress.
If you’re a progressive in a marginal district, voting no is the smart move. It gives the Republicans no ammunition against you. When gas prices are sky-high next summer, they can’t say it’s because you voted for a huge tax increase on energy. And you can say to progressives that you did it because this bill wasn’t good enough; you’re covered coming and going.
However, if this does turn out to be the one chance we get, then defeating the bill is arguably the kind of mistake that would haunt a person of good conscience for a lifetime.
For those same progressives in marginal districts, voting yes ends up being entirely about conviction and principle, because it sure as heck isn’t the savvy political move. It gives the Republicans ammunition – "Rep. Such-and-Such voted for the largest tax increase in history, and your gas and energy prices have skyrocketed because of it. Vote them out, now." And in those marginal districts, where we don’t have the concentrations of environmentally-minded voters present in places like the district I ran in, that argument will carry weight.
We talk a lot about wanting representatives who will display courage and conviction. But the real test of that isn’t what they do when it’s easy – it’s what they do when it’s hard. Voting yes on this bill in a marginal district is hard, and clearly about choosing to do what’s right over doing what would protect you politically.
We will have some Members who are about to do something incredibly hard because they truly believe it’s right. It seems to me that it’s worth moving mountains to keep people like that in Congress.
Disclaimer: This was posted in my personal capacity, not any organizational or official one.



Darcy!!!!! So sorry about the house!!! Will be following you!!
that alerted them too the fire? Good job on both counts Henry.
He also led his preschool classmates out on strike when he was 3 to protest a shortening of their playground time. I kid you not.
He's going to be a terrific adult, so long as I survive that long!
you didn't name him Bunsen!
Bunsen
After
Flagg
Bookman, Book for short...
:-)
Wait till you try to ground him.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
My current leverage is to tell him he won't be allowed to create any new levels in Boom Blox if he doesn't behave...
even though I wasn't in your district. I still think you will be one heck of a congressperson. I alsso met you at some of your campaign stops. Nice to hear from you again.
I promised I'd never stop working to make the kind of progressive world we deserve, and I'm doing my darndest to keep that promise.
We'll eventually get the house rebuilt. (This was taken on the back deck...)
I wonder if the Climate Change people could run a commercial like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYk5MNjYhmk&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Thanks for posting this. Your son is awesome. Like my very similarly intelligent and adorable two-and-a-half year old son Cole reminds me every wondrous day, everything we do - and should be doing - is for them and their world...we're just the caretakers. Thanks for your good work, and tell Henry thanks for me.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper
He'll be happy to hear people appreciate his efforts.
Interesting post - got a 404 on the ActBlue link though. I was wondering how the contributions could be used to help these congresspeople with regards to this specific issue.
[I emailed the site team and asked them to fix it. Thank you-Sitemonitor]
I went to the ActBlue (I don't like that name, it seems like your acting blue instead of being blue like so many pols already) site and the first name I saw was Chris Dodd. I don't like Chris Dodd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqAMA076bD4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
erstwhile?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
not quite sure what you mean, unless you consider a point in time a quality.
is a good concept, however, polluters will offset the fees to the customers, and we will feel it in our pocketbooks. We aren't necessarily winners in this by any means.
And I do. I support this legislation. I will check and see how my local critters voted.
But, does anyone else see what I see, about the system and how it works in the US, when there is a link titled
"I want to help principled progressives who vote their conscience when it's politically costly understand that we have their backs."
which goes to a donation page. Again, I support this cause. But, what does it say about US politics being pay-to-play? I understand why, I know it's important. If you can donate, please do.
I look at the congressional voting history on several issues, and I see this as the problem over and over. Now, when democrats are becoming more aware that Congress, not just the ex-President is the problem ... and we can't fix that problem without voting/election reform. I begin to wonder that if there is one issue we should all focus on now, at once, it might be that.
I begin to suspect that if we can't get election reform now/soon, that we will never get any of the other issues addressed, or, if they are addressed the result will be that the only legislation that passes will be watered-down enough to be useless, or with clauses that actually hurt, not help the general non-high-dollar donating public.
You are absolutely correct. Mandatory public campaign finance reform is what is needed. This is a Congress bought and paid for by special interests. We will not see the sweeping changes we want until we can assure members; who vote for what is best for their constituents, are protected against the special interests that will attempt to bury them by sending huge sums of money to their opponents.
...I'm up for doing what I can to keep the good ones in Congress.
Please consider a donation, even a small one.
...that the most logical means of campaign finance reform would be to allow anybody (or any company) to contribute as much money as they want...but it would then be split EVENLY between the political parties. Level the playing field, then let the best message and ideas win.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper
is to purchase the undivided attention of the law-makers for a very specific agenda, interests in which the individual legislator is provided, as a sort of quid-pro-quo... giving everybody the same amount of money would make that kind....erm. yeah, there's THAT!
How come I don't see this being explained in this debate on the floor? One of the main things I have criticized Democrats for is their messaging to the people.
Darcy - I commend you on explaining the obstacles that progressives face, but I can assure you most of the electorate does not.
on this?
and we should too...
here's how they're doing it (also included: the info on persuadable reps their posting for their readers to call and email):
http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/dir...
My understanding is that they're flooding the phone lines into the House offices. It would be good to provide a counter to that.
has the contact info that they posted at redstate so you don't even have to go to their site if you don't want to.
although, it is instructive to read their comments on these posts. they're providing updates and even alternative ways to get to the wavering reps.
they really seem to be getting into this. we need to adopt the same methodology...
You can still change your vote once the House and Senate legislation is combined.
read this at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/clim...
Carl Pope, head of the environmental giant Sierra Club, has also been twisting the arms of undecided liberals, arguing that by holding out support for the bill they're strengthening the hand of moderate and conservative Democrats who want to push the bill right.
"If Waxman-Markey can't get the votes of reliable liberals, they are then forced to go to the right to get a majority," Pope told the Huffington Post. The bill that has emerged isn't as strong as it could be, he said, because of the "impact of the failure of liberals to commit on the bill."
And while admitting that the final package had flaws, Pope said that the Sierra Club is still unequivocally supporting passage. "I'm pleased with what Waxman is up to. I'm not overall pleased with the way... Congress as a whole is reacting to energy and climate. There are far too many members who are treating it as a regional issue instead of a national issue. I'd have hoped that after two wars in the gulf over global oil, with the climate crisis, with the economic crisis, that members of Congress would say we need to create a new energy economy, we need to create it now... we can't continue to treat energy policy as a regional issue. And far too many members are."
I prefer scientific arguments to be presented with a little more rigor. Yet I find this young gentleman to be extremely persuasive. And too cute for words.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If I didn't send a letter telling you already I just want to let you know I LOVE the sticker postcard you sent out during the campaign!
Comments are closed on this entry