Empty threats get attention, but no more than that

From the "Power Up" newsletter on the Washington Post website, here is the first graf of the lead story:

For the second time in the organization's history, the League of Conservation Voters political action committee last night alerted all Congressional Democrats it will only consider endorsements for members who support key climate provisions in the $3.5 trillion spending blueprint, according to a letter shared with Power Up.

These sorts of threats seem both desperate and dangerous. Maybe the power of these conservation voters is enough to sway election results, or maybe not, but as long as we have a two-party system, and one party is clearly and loudly anti-conservation, the threat seems like self-harm.

Most people like being able to lord it over somebody (anybody!) and brag and threaten, but this sort of letter seems like bluster without bite, doesn't it? So called environmentalists cost Al Gore victory over two decades ago, and lack of common cause allowed Trump to squeak out a win in 2016. I wonder if environmentalists are pining for more Republican rule of the government. 

But at least they can stand proudly, sticking to their principles as their cause languishes (or maybe even causes a backlash among those not quite so radical).

Of course, extremism is back in vogue in our politics and it's tough to get the media to pay attention when there is so much chaos to cover, from floods to fires to drought to collapsing structures to a pandemic that won't ever end.

My most recent line of thinking on the state of the nation is absorbed by the question, "How does it all end, or at least calm down?"

I have not been able to even imagine an event or turn of history or natural disaster that would make significant changes in the nation.

But I still have faith in the bedrock selfishness of most people (including me, I guess). If government can deliver some needed and important services, government can regain a bit of status.

I see that an unprecedented report endorsed by 200 medical journals states that climate change is the "greatest threat to global health." This may be logical and may take the proper longer view of health trends, but this report seems as likely to effect change as the Conversation Voters' letter. Those medical journals are all tools of Satanic baby-eaters, after all.

But, by all means, let's focus on academic journals and arguments that span multiple human lifetimes in terms of policies and repercussions.

Yes, they SHOULD help guide decision makers, but that's not how politics works.