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?
Because the average household has gone insular given the financial problems of the day. Survival mode means you’re not looking globally but inside your own “house”.
You may not want to hear that, but it’s how most people, middle of the bell curve, function.
How am I going to pay rent? How am I getting to work to pay rent? How am I going to get healthy food for my kids? How many meals do I have to skip this week so my kids can have meals? How am I going to get gas money? How many holes can these socks and underwear endure before I have to buy new ones? How long until the bandaid around the sharp edges one the safety pin holding my bra together fails?
Shit like that is dominating people’s minds? Climate? Might as well be asking about space aliens and stardust. The processing power isn’t there right now. Again, it may not be ideal to you, but, middle of the bell curve, that’s how people function.
As such, answers to the daily survival questions are coming first.
Yes, it’s all moot if the planet dies, but timeline wise most people aren’t going be able to look that far ahead of their kid is crying out of hunger right now or they’re stranded unable to get transport to work, today. They want today solved, not next year.
It’s like saying, why didn’t you get to the hospital to perform that life saving surgery when the surgeon is busy watching her shoes burn and trying to figure out how to get them off before they become one with her skin. Both things need doing, but what is closest to an individual is what that individual will be focused on. Burning footwear > surgery located elsewhere, never mind how important both things are.
The best thing to do for the climate is getting rid of the 1 percent richest
Private jet loss would actually impact thing.
Personally I see things going in the direction of Ministry for the Future.
How about we fight the class war and get their money out of politics while growing children that do not worship the idea of insane generational wealth. We don’t elect kings and fuck the epstein class.
Hit the nail right on the head. We can’t get most people to care about other groups of people right now, let alone climate change. The zone is being flooded, 24/7. It’s so bad that the average voter is desensitized to it all.
Trump and Epstein fighting over being the first to rape a child? Sounds about right, what can be done?
Gas hitting $10 by Christmas? Stressing me out, what are you going to do though?
Midterms will not be free and fair? They own the whole government, basically. What can be done?
It’s hard to blame someone for giving up hope, and looking inward. Climate change was not taken seriously by most people in the US to begin with.
Also this post is very suspicious, like, hey the democrats are not perfect so lets all just lay down and die!
It’s not that I didn’t take it seriously, but it truly is a leadership issue. The scale of the climate issue is why governments exist. But because corporate (been playing Cyberpunk and want to call it corpo) started buying up government shares in the 80s the necessary legislation never happened.
To toss another analogy your way, daylight savings is going away. The thing about that argument, sticking with one or the other because it will make winter life soooo much better, sure it will impact, but not as hard as people think. The days will still get shorter and darker in winter, that will not go away, overall, even if we stop changing the clocks.
This election is going to be the same. (Vote, definitely.) It feels like people are reaching out hands towards ballots, while drowning, expecting a save. Things will shift, yes, but I doubt it will be dramatic. Gas prices are borked, billionaires will still exist, and AI has freely collected our data while u demoing home computing. The government coffers are pilfered and the debt is even more astronomical. It’s going to be a shit Christmas for the kids this year either way. Still vote, it’s about the only handhold we have right now.
I agree and another way of saying this is that we are not evolved enough to organize on such a large scale, we really are just great apes with a limited 100-150 members of our in group. Once we are made to care and understand more we simply fail to rise up to the occasion. Another way of putting it, we cannot act as individuals to make world wide change, we need organized government with a long term goal, almost like religion without the death cult stuff. So if organized humanity keeps on keeping on, it will be very messy, almost as if our leaders and collective actions mirror that of a screaming child without parents, goals, and having a messy bottom.
There is science to the 100-150 people thing, in terms of memory. There are limitations to how many people you can hold in head at the same time.
That said, gathering crowds, or mobs, isn’t about that, it’s mainly rooted in common information. And that doesn’t exist any more, by intention. Every one of us in this thread has ingested different info today, this week, this year. Every single one. Now, those Venn diagrams on ingested info will have overlap, because it’s Lemmy, but even so. The lack exists. And that’s on Lemmy. Out there, off Lemmy, there may be zero overlap on ingested information.
Without common information and cause for emotional need to rise, it won’t happen.
Half the comments are saying this but the vast majority of Dem voters and a simple majority of US adults want more to be done about climate change. People are very much able to care about multiple things at once.
The challenge is that for it to be a good campaign issue, it has to be a big priority with minimal exploitable downside. While people might abstractly want to address climate change, they care more about their economic well being. So taking time away from talking about economy is taking time away from the more impactful messaging. Also, gives opportunity for the opposition to assert the obsession with climate change will hurt their economic outcome. The good answers address all at once with nuance, but nuance sadly does not work well in a campaign.
I’m not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I’m going to just copy and paste this around:
First, I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there’s no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won’t substantiate, so until that happens I’ll rely on a good old appeal to authority: Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he’s winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument.
But right now, wanting to take care of the climate is taking a back seat to not wanting to live in a fascist dictatorship ran by geriatric toddlers who can’t even string a coherent sentence together unless it’s about some kid they want to fuck.
The good news is that the best thing we can do in the United States is get rid of the giant pile of rancid shit.
It’s not hyperbole to say everything that is bad right now is his (and his cronies) fault, including the present affordability crisis.
Geriatric, misogynistic toddlers who also want to re-establish some of their lost ownership over women. This pesky liberation shit needs to be dialed back. 50 years is long enough, daddy’s home now.
(It creeps me out and repulses me typing that post comma part but that’s their language).
The big question here is: Why not both? Clearly this is an issue that voters care about (as of May 26th), so it’s not going to lose votes. This explanation simply doesn’t work to explain establishment Democratic candidates’ behavior, and frankly I don’t understand the urge to look for alternative explanations when we already know they’re corporate shills that don’t care about the climate.
Because at this point climate change can easily be twisted into more BS culture war propaganda used by far right fascist. Like all we want is affordable gas so we can drive 40 mins one way to a dead end job but the damn tree huggers be blocking my commune in the middle of a heat wave during rush hour. See?
Climate change is already culture war BS and has been for a while. Anyone who would buy this is already lost to the Democrats anyway. Like we have decades of data on the subject; for large parties elections are won or lost by motivating one’s base of support to turn out not by competing over a mythical median voter, and evidently 90% of the Democrats’ base of support wants more to be done about climate change.
From a campaign perspective you want a clear, concise message.
There are a gazillion things that need taking care of, but the reality is if you spend time talking about all of them, the message won’t get out and elections will be lost.
This is very true. Slogans work. “We’re not going back” was stellar, but the dunbasses running Kamala dropped it.
A phrase as simple that resonates not just with Lemmy, but the middle of the bell curve people, is needed.
Republicans are really good at it. Dems, never. Too many wet cats swiping at each other and arguing about what’s most important.
A main message sure, but the idea that an electoral campaign can or should only have one message doesn’t match up with reality and is—I’m sorry—frankly bullshit. Pick a Senator or Representative at random and see what their platform was when they got elected. Candidates right now are running on parallel messages of affordability and protecting democracy, and Abdul El Sayed—one of the most successful progressives currently campaigning—also has healthcare as a core part of his platform and I’m pretty sure I remember him talking about foreign wars. Before you respond next you should take a moment to consider why you just said something that’s so obviously untrue.
Edit: Besides, somebody should at least be talking about all the wildfires.
Sure, in interviews they can parse shit out, and that is a good thing, but what is the sell phrase? Whitmer won in Michigan based on “Fix the Damn Roads!” Having driven on them, I can tell you, it’s a byline that could reach every person in that state.
People are busy. They’re not reading what you read. No one is reading what you read, or what I read, that’s how fractured information dissemination is right now. We all consume different news, if any at all.
When the working class majority walk to their voting center, dragging their asses there after having worked 11 shifts in the 7 days prior, what’s the single line that’s going to make them want to spend the energy and not just collapse on their bed?
If you spew multiple things at them they’ll probably just go to bed.
I’m not going to write a bespoke reply for every single person saying the same thing so I’m going to just copy and paste this around:
First, I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that. We have a quarter century of reality we can measure these claims against and see how they hold up. Second, there’s no point in arguing against a position whose proponent won’t substantiate, so until that happens I’ll rely on a good old appeal to authority: Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he’s winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument.
You should take a moment to understand American voters. And also to not be an ass.
I’m sorry that you don’t under stand that US politics is decided on a small handful of issues. Recognizing that isn’t “stupid” it’s simply paying the fuck attention.
If you really want to know where a candidate stands on climate change, I’m sure you can find that, or just ask their campaign and get an answer. But they’re only going to hammering on a few issues because that’s how the America voter just is.
Re-read what you just wrote about El-Sayed.
That’s two things.
His messaging in detail about what those two things means and what he’s gonna do about it include things like Medicare for all, and ending costly foreign wars and removing corruption. Personally, it’s actually only one thing. Because right now Trump’s and the rest of the admin’s rampant corruption is the primary cause of affordability.
You’re acting like they have to message on every topic. And no single campaign (especially national campaigns, but state wide campaigns are bad enough,) can cover every single topic you might be interested in; and right now these things are what Americans are into so that’s what they’re driving home.
Well I’m trying but it’s really hard when everyone keeps offering the same myth without a lick of evidence (and with a fair bit of condescension) and with no concern for whether history or the data backs it up and I’m supposed to just accept it. And if you just thought “what condescension,” this condescension:
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Before I write a wall of text explaining why I think you’re wrong, I’m going to have to ask for evidence that you’re right. But so I don’t leave you hanging, Abdul El Sayed, possibly the most successful progressive this election, is outspoken about his climate policy, the right is going totally insane about it and he’s winning anyway. In the absence of better evidence, this is fatal for your argument as it currently stands.
If you go back and read my first reply to you… you’ll notice there wasn’t any condescension at all. the second reply?
Yeah. because you’re being like that yourself, dick. I even did you the favor of quoting the part I was responding to, just so you know. You know, where you said:
So if you don’t like it, maybe don’t start it.
Now, as for the actual conversation at hand, I’m just going to put this out there for everyone else. Cuz I think it’s pretty obvious now that you’re not actually paying attention. To anything.
You’re not trying. And the demand for evidence is pretty stupid. It’s pretty self evidence if one just pays attention, after all. Or did you just arrogantly believe you know best, made some shit up, and thought “hey, the reason no political campaign does it my way, is because they’re JUST STUPID”?
I mean, have you even been to El-Sayed’s campaign page? Clear. Concise. 3 bullet points:
“Money out of politics”
“Money in your pockets”
“Medicare for all.”
yes, you’ll notice, as I suggested, that it’s corruption, affordability and affordability. And he has some bullet points buried under that, that talk about the environment and natural resources and water access tucked up under “money out of politics”, but even as he’s talking about that, it’s back to his anti-corruption.
You’re evidence that you’re right? a YT video from five years ago that is is irrelevant to this campaign, and a right wing bullshit rag that’s not part of his campaign. And yeah, he’s successful. You should pay attention to his messaging, and how that messaging is being delivered.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to go hunt down any of the dozens of polls that put affordability (“the economy”) as the major concern, or people’s concerns about trump stealing the election or his rampant corruption as another major thing… and the same polls that show Americans are far less worried about the climate. (and have always been less concerned.)
you can just google that.
I’m not sure what type of person answers questions that come via random, not really identified text spam, but I don’t think they’re representative of the middle of the bell curve populace. Middle of the bell curve, my money is on “delete and report spam”, or, sadly, “STOP”, letting the spammers know it’s working so they get more.
If you’re implying that Pew Research’s polls have a significant selection bias I’m going to have to ask for evidence for that.
I’m offering up common sense. That is all.
Well my common sense says that an organization as reputable as Pew Research has either taken this into account or concluded it doesn’t cause significant error. Now where do we go from here?