It died at the hands of The Kennedys and the Kochs. An unholy alliance of progressives and conservatives sunk the project. Here we see that energy policy trumps politics when it comes into conflict with people's personal interests.
On the other hand, the industry learned so long as the turbines are out of sight, they are out of the NYMBY's minds.
> An unholy alliance of progressives and conservatives sunk the project.
The idea that powerful families are radically different because they support one side of politics or another is a great myth used to manipulate and control people. An average poor or middle class family has more in common with another such family on the other side of a political spectrum than with their respective party leaders.
I didn't get this at first reading, but it's a pretty subtle and important point.
Powerful families are chummy with other powerful people because power ends up being the most important status symbol, and ideology can hide behind it.
It's basically the reason that orthodox Republican economic policy can even exist. It's terribly debunked theory, but because the messengers are WSJ op-ed writers that went to fancy schools and wear bow ties to work, their view "couldn't possibly be just wrong".
There was some polls recently that showed that when asked about GOP tax plans, people refused to believe that the pollsters were even telling the truth on the facts, because it was so absurd. Of course there wouldn't be a tax break for private jet maintenance!
But politicians believe their friends, just like we all do. It's the base of "keep politics out of X".
Perhaps the point is subtle, because you seem to have missed it entirely. Republican policy isn't wrong because it isn't Democrat policy; it's wrong because they're the same policy with two slightly different marketing plans. If we judge this policy by its results, it's clearly neither progressive nor conservative. Rather, it's highly effective in keeping the plebes hard at work while ensuring that all resources of society are controlled by the wealthy and powerful and amoral. If you still care to defend one party against the other, you're still being manipulated.
That's a useful talking point to use when Republicans are in the midst of passing terrible legislation, it really spreads the blame. But it's a nonsense false equivalence in this era when they are undoing every single that the Democrats did under Obama's administration that they can, including and especially protections put in place to protect people from financial abuse by powerful incumbent players. You have taken a point about the very rich and used it to propagate the party equivalence meme.
Agree. There's really 3 parties in the US: Republicans, Democrats, and Incumbents. Your best bet is to always vote against the incumbent, even if you agree with whats coming out of their mouth.
It is disgusting that any individual has that sort of power.
Being in politics is supposed to mean being a public servant.
Well okay, how much power do you think Senators give their servants? They probably don't think of their housekeepers/sitters/chefs/etc's opinions at all. If their dog-walker objects to the dog that they get, what's going to happen? The dog sure isn't going to change.
We call it "servant", but in fact still treat them like royalty. We never fully made the transition from royalty to servant. Why do so many governments put their high officials up in special house/palaces? We don't do that for any other jobs. It would be much healthier to treat elections like a shared effort to hire someone to do a job.
Terry Pratchett has a lot of good aphorisms, but one that stuck with me is some etymology from a cop and a Machiavellian dictator:
> "It's all for the good of the city, sir. Do you know where the word 'policeman' comes from? It means 'man of the city', sir. From the old word polis."
> ...
> "You're a man interested in words, captain. I'd just invite you to consider something your predecessor never fully grasped."
> "Sir?"
> "Have you ever wondered where the word 'politician' comes from?" Said the Patrician.
These roles have a very specific purpose, and that purpose is service. They've veered sharply away from it, but that is still their job. Also, I think in real life the root is 'politia' or 'politika' or something, but the definition is similar.
And another word from that book: 'polite' apparently came from 'behavior befitting someone living in a city.' I guess social norms maybe became more important with the density?
This is all from ancient Greek where the city ("polis") was the state.
These terms were thus all created in the first democracy we know of. However, that was then followed by millennia of monarchies. Modern democracies came into existence in an environment where monarchies were still the norm and it shows. I find it reminiscent of the fact that Christians celebrate Christmas which is supposedly a Christian holiday by following all kinds of pagan rituals like the entire Christmas tree thing.
politicians are the one percent, they control the purse strings. the very rich are the only people of means who can pay them to look away.
politicians then use this wealth to divide the rest of the country to insure their continuance in power. they are loyal to their party before the people and it is that stranglehold that needs to be broken to bring accountability back.
I don't know what country you're from but there clearly seems to be two distinct political parties in the US, one that supports consumers and the other that supports corporations. Trying to argue that the DNC and GOP are the same is complete lunacy.
The DNC isn't nearly as innocent as you claim. The ultimate goal is power, the rhetoric and ideas are slightly different but corporations and the rich benefit the most.
disclaimer: I voted straight D in the last 4 elections
If you don't think the Rs and Ds are different sides of the same coin, just look at the nevertrumpers and "deep staters", career appointees who carry on regardless of who's in power.
This uniparty allows fringes of either side some pet causes, but at the heart of it, both parties share the same values.
That's not all that bad either, it guarantees continuity and limited disruption --but we need to understand that's how it works and its consequent limitations.
The only non unipartarians the last 25 years have been Perot, perhaps Sanders and Trump. Prior to that JFK.
On the other hand, the industry learned so long as the turbines are out of sight, they are out of the NYMBY's minds.