Long story short: Billionaire-backed centrist groups told them not to. But with the midterms days away, is that really a good idea?

But for how important this election will be for Planet Earth and the humans who live on it, the issue itself isn’t getting much airtime. Earlier this month, The Guardian examined the campaign websites of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates in eight battleground states. Of all the candidates surveyed, only two explicitly mentioned climate change.

This retreat hasn’t happened by accident. Over the last two years, some of the Democratic Party’s most influential strategists, donors, and think tanks have been explicitly telling candidates to shut up about climate change and focus on the economy instead—as if those were two separate issues.

It’s a strategy known as climate hushing. And with the midterms fast-approaching, it’s worth asking: Who convinced Democrats that ignoring climate change was a winning strategy? Does the evidence actually support that argument? And what is that silence costing the rest of us?

  • Gordon Calhoun@lemmy.world
    1·
    9 hours ago

    You’ve already received well-reasoned and logical answers in this thread as to why this topic is not a viable campaign issue amidst the socioeconomic and existential threats. The man with a gun in a burning house metaphor characterized this election’s mood particularly well, as did the surgeon with burning shoes. Your insistence on trying to make this topic relevant right now reinforces my suspicion that climate guilt is a desperate psyop by right wing operatives to undercut Dem candidates.

    Anthropogenic climate change is absolutely a huge issue, but to paraphrase Col. Chris Hadfield, ‘it’s not the thing that’s going to kill you first.’ Clean the house of reactionary fascists, leash the capitalist greed, find steadier economic ground, and then maybe well-reasoned solutions for mitigating climate change can be addressed. Unfortunately, it’s probably all in vain since Gore lost the 2000 election. I wouldn’t be surprised if the instability and grift we’re experiencing currently is only the beginning of the end being wrought by the changing climate. Rifkin’s entropy watershed may already be upon us.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      1·
      9 hours ago

      You’ve already received well-reasoned and logical answers in this thread as to why this topic is not a viable campaign issue amidst the socioeconomic and existential threats.

      I’ve received centrist mythology offered without a lick of evidence. Again, we have actual history and data that can be used to confirm or refute these answers; these aren’t arguments so good I have to accept them without evidence. Speaking of evidence, it’s a bit outdated being from earlier this year, but climate change is still a huge issue among Dem voters. Besides, clearly some candidates are talking about climate change, so the “not a viable campaign issue” thing falls flat on its face. Logic and reason is frankly pointless if it’s not grounded in reality.