The British screenwriter Angus MacPhail is credited with coining the term “MacGuffin,” though it is usually attributed to Alfred Hitchcock. In drama, the MacGuffin is anything the pursuit of which serves to drive the plot forward. The MacGuffin may not itself be of any intrinsic interest; what is important is that the protagonists of the story are desperately seeking to acquire it.
In House Resolution 109 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal, the environment — the “Green” bit — is the MacGuffin. Though the proposed legislation is ostensibly aimed at saving the planet from the looming carbon apocalypse, that really isn’t the point of this bill. Rather, climate change is simply the excuse used to justify broad and deep changes to our economy, and drastic restrictions of our choices, prosperity, and freedom. It is a truly fascistic resolution masquerading as a noble pursuit of clean water and blue skies.
It’s also a very dishonest bit of work. It begins with a recitation of falsehoods about increased severe weather events, and a claim of anthropogenic global warming that is not supported by evidence. It then trots out the ludicrously tenuous projections of economic impact four score years from now, and cites them as a justification for a truly draconian forced transformation of the economy.
The environment is really not what the resolution is about. All the talk of “renewable” and “Green” and “clean” this and that is simply the MacGuffin intended to move this ugly bit of central planning forward. What the resolution is really about is social justice, government control, and socialism.
That’s why it spends so much time talking about “indigenous peoples” and “communities of color,” and why it invokes the common — but not environment-related — leftist tropes of income inequality and racial/gender divides.
That’s why it promises to (all bold text taken verbatim from the resolution):
Maybe those are noble goals (though I actually think they’re mostly victim-baiting and grievance-mongering), but they aren’t environmental goals. They’re simply more of the left’s redistributive, identity-group social engineering.
What else does it offer? Free education:
providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States ….
Union jobs:
high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages
Guaranteed wages, benefits, vacations, and retirement for everyone:
a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States
More stuff for unions (because we love our unions):
strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain
More business regulation and micro-management:
strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors
A big nod to the American Indian community:
obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples
And providing — that’s the word it uses — every American with:
high-quality health care
housing
economic security
food
and access to nature.
Got it? This supposed “environmental” legislation would: guarantee you a house, a job, food, a college education, and health care; strengthen unions; and provide reparations and special advantages to all sorts of “aggrieved” groups including Native Americans, the young, the handicapped, women, and minorities.
Why don’t they simply call it the Turn America into Venezuela Proposal? Because that wouldn’t sell (and, let’s be honest, because they’re too foolish to appreciate that that’s where this would go). So instead they wrap it in a dishonest claim of imminent global catastrophe, and use that as the justification for calling for de facto state control of industry and commerce, education and health care, our jobs and our homes and our lives.
The new fascists are cute and perky and full of themselves, but they’re still fascists.
Richard Racette says:
Brilliant!
hr says:
Thank you, Richard.
It was inspired by the link you emailed me. Thanks for that.
Richard Racette says:
Glad I could help. Your analysis is excellent in terms of breaking it down and showing the flaws. One theory is that this is a smoke screen intended to be a distraction while more mischief takes place. I’m not sure. I think the original intent, while misguided and unworkable, was genuine, but the Dems may be now using it as a distraction.
hr says:
You could be right, but I generally assume the obvious is likely to be the case. I think we have some overly confident know-nothings who want to change the world and just can’t imagine that anything could possibly go wrong. Because they’re ignorant, and blissfully unaware of their lack of wisdom.
John Racette says:
This is the best one so far, bro.
Don’t get cocky.
Jean Gordon says:
Hank, what is the women bashing in the last line all about? Try to end on a scholarly note rather than negating the entire article with a zing at the end about some woman/women. Its offensive and disturbing.
hr says:
Jean, I don’t think of it as “women bashing.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is “cute and perky.” That’s why she’s a Congresswoman, rather than a bartender. I’m poking fun at her because cute and perky is pretty much all she is. The young woman has no business being in Congress. Some other women do, but not this little nut.
Paula Adamd says:
She is not cute or perky . More like scary and dangerous. How do we stop this madness ?
hr says:
Well, I think she’s cute and perky.
We stop it by educating people about it, laughing at it, and voting Republican.