Skip to main content

Sanders v Biden

With Elizabeth Warren stepping out of the Democratic candidate race we are left with two tired old men who will probably now inflict untold damage on each other.  Neither is likely to come out of the race unscathed.   It is a battle between a 'socialist' left and a centrist.  Tired ideas headed up by tired old men. It is hardly inspirational stuff.

American politics seems to be stuck in a time warp and neither the Republicans nor Democrats have ideas robust enough to face the critical challenge of climate change.   Climate change doesn't split neatly into a left-right division.    It really needs youthful leadership with new ideas.  Someone capable of projecting a vision of a new horizon. 

Instead, we will have two potential leaders appealing to their separate camps of followers.  Those follow will entrench in their positions, and the risk is that it will alienate voters needed to win against Trump.  

American politics is stuck in a groove, and it leaves the populist demagoguery of Donal Trump in place. 

Let's be clear.  The two left in the Democratic race,  Joe Biden and Berny Sanders,  are 77 and 78 years old respectively.  

Of course, we should not be ageist about this.  There is no reason why a septuagenarian could not lead a country. 

But where have all the young men and women gone?  Where indeed have all the women gone?  Gone to the ground, everyone?  As Warren has said 'girls will have to wait again.' 

It is dispiriting stuff.  Both candidates are 'try, try, and try again' characters banging on with the same platforms.



Sanders is said to be the 'progressive' candidate.   Biden the 'centrist'.  Both model their policies to combat climate change on the 'Green new deal'.

Sanders calls his plans 'The Green New Deal".  Biden's is the "Clean Energy Revolution"   They would both sign back into the Paris climate accord.   Sanders would spend over $16 trillion over a decade on measures to combat climate change.  Biden would spend just $1.7 trillion.  Now that is a massive difference.  But is it anything more than out-bidding each other? 

Sander's plan would see electricity and transportation fueled by 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030.  Here in the UK, that was also in the Labour plans at the general election which was modelled on the same "Green New Deal".   It is a huge task. 

Biden's plan is more conservative seeing zero net emissions by 2050.  Which of these is the more realistic?  One is undoubtedly bold.  Both are polar opposites to the Climate change denial of President Donald Trump.

Whichever version is adopted by the Democrats, the party will need to reach out to voters in a politically divided nation.   Will the candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination be able to avoid damaging each others case so much that it becomes difficult to sell to voters in the Presidential election?  Let's hope not.   If we are to prevent a climate catastrophe, we will need the United States at the forefront of tackling it.  

The next presidential election may be the last chance saloon for progressive policies on global warming. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,