Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was a bartender before running for Congress, has joked on Twitter about proposed names for “Cocktails for the Revolution” in promoting the “Green New Deal.” But in all seriousness, implementing the sweeping program would require a major political revolution in the United States.
To be clear, when I use the term “revolution,” I do not mean it in the loose sense in which it is typically employed in the relatively stable world of American politics. Political scientists and authors may refer to the Reagan Revolution or the Gingrich Revolution or the Obama Revolution. Sen. Bernie Sanders often refers to his movement as a revolution, and many of his former 2016 volunteers took the name of his book, Our Revolution, and turned it into an organization that supported socialist candidates, including Ocasio-Cortez, in 2018.
When I say the “Green New Deal” would require a revolution, however, I don’t mean it in the sense that it would require electing new people with dramatically different ideas who would then work within the current system to pass and implement those ideas. I mean that it would require a disruption more along the lines of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the Chinese Communist Revolution. That is, it will require dramatic changes to the underlying structure of government.
Though there’s no detailed “Green New Deal” at the moment, what we do have is a resolution outlining goals for the program. There are environmental goals that rest on the premise that, absent dramatic action within the next decade, there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences as a result of climate change. Those goals include generating 100 percent of power in the U.S. from renewables within a decade (from its current 17 percent), creating a vast high-speed rail network, making significant changes to agriculture, and upgrading every single building in the U.S. so that they’re all energy-efficient.
In addition to the proposals that are directly tied to the environmental issue, there are promises of expanding unions, providing free college, free healthcare, affordable housing, “healthy food” for all, and general “economic security.”
Though there is currently no cost estimate for the project, based on the estimated cost of a few provisions, it’s fair to say it would require tens of trillions of dollars of spending and become the most expensive endeavor in American history, even adjusting for inflation.
Making it a reality, however, would not be possible within the constraints of the current political system.
Right now, Republicans control the Senate with 53 seats. In 2020, Democrats have to defend Alabama. This means Democrats would almost certainly have to win four seats (two of which would have to be in states Trump carried in 2016), plus the presidency, just to be in a position to pass legislation with the vice president breaking any tie. Any larger majority would require winning in red states, making those senators beholden to a more conservative electorate. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, of coal-heavy West Virginia, told local reporters of the plan to eliminate fossil fuels within a decade that it “is not feasible, not practical, and it’s not going to happen.” And this assumes that they get rid of the filibuster or find some other way around the 60-vote requirement for legislation, which is far from assured. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a co-sponsor of the “Green New Deal” and a 2020 presidential candidate, recently signaled reluctance to undo the filibuster to pass it.
The broader point is that nothing close to the “Green New Deal” is going to get through a two-chamber legislative body in which one chamber gives states equal representation regardless of size. It means that a small coal-dependent state like Manchin’s West Virginia has the same say as the much larger California. Plenty of liberal academics and commentators have lamented this reality, but this is the system that exists. Enacting the “Green New Deal” thus would almost certainly require abolishing the Senate.
Even if liberals find a way to overcome these obstacles to pass sweeping legislation, it only gets them to the difficulty of implementation. Beyond the practical difficulties presented by, say, scaling up renewables so rapidly, there are challenges posed by the nation’s federalist structure, its judicial system, and its frequent elections.
Obamacare intended to expand Medicaid throughout the U.S. But states sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that they could choose whether or not to expand Medicaid. Despite the federal government offering to cover nearly all of the cost and an intense lobbying effort by hospitals as well as political pressure, 14 states still haven’t adopted it. In addition, Democrats have lamented the extent to which President Trump has been able to “sabotage” Obamacare through administrative actions.
The 2009 economic stimulus bill was supposed to broadly expand the use of high-speed rail. After Republicans enjoyed a wave election victory in 2010, they choked off new money for the initiative and Republican governments in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin rejected federal money for high-speed rail. California was gung-ho about the idea, first approved by its voters in a 2008 ballot measure. The high-speed rail project, however, was delayed by all sorts of environmental impact and land disputes, and only a small segment in the Central Valley was expected to open by 2025. That is, 17 years after voters approved the project, a small portion was to be opening in a less populated part of the state, which was supposed to be the easy part, compared to the denser areas surrounding San Francisco and Los Angeles. But the larger plan was thrown in doubt on Tuesday afternoon, when Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said the state would have to ditch the project beyond the Central Valley, saying it “would cost too much and take too long.” Even as a much smaller project failed in a state completely dominated by Democrats, the “Green New Deal” aims to build a massive, nationwide, high-speed rail system.
All of these initiatives would pale in comparison with what is being contemplated by the “Green New Deal.” What happens to states that aren’t interested in high-speed rail? What if people don’t want to take government grants to make energy efficient upgrades to their homes? What happens when states and individuals claiming injuries seek stays in court from some of the “Green New Deal” initiatives, and are granted them? Accepting the premise of the “Green New Deal” is to accept that individual choices have significant consequences for the nation as a whole. The more deference that any legislation makes to states and individuals, the lower the level of compliance. The stricter the mandates, the more openings for legal challenges that delay actions, and the greater the likelihood of backlash.
And what happens if the “Green New Deal” is enacted in 2021, challenged in court, and in 2022 Republicans take over Congress, make big gains at the state level, and/or retake the presidency in 2024?
If you play out all the scenarios, it becomes pretty clear that to actually enact and implement the “Green New Deal,” it would require some sort of revolution that topples the existing government and creates one with a new structure that allows leaders to act more quickly, and with fewer constraints. The new government would have to claim some sort of emergency powers allowing it to force compliance, and then, it would have to suspend elections at least until the economy is completely transformed in accordance with the desires of the “Green New Deal.”
This may sound like a wild scenario. But I’d like to hear an alternate explanation of how the nation’s current political system of a bicameral legislature, in which there are checks and balances between states and the federal government, in which legislation is frequently challenged in court, and in which elections are held every two years, would enable something as sweeping as the “Green New Deal” to became law and get implemented over the course of a decade or more.
Editor’s note: This article was updated since publication to reflect Newsom’s statement on scaling back the California high-speed rail project.
