The American Journal of Shark Jumping

For those who may have read it in times past, they may have since noticed that what was once a sensible albeit left leaning publication, The New Republic, has now lost its mind.

The New Republic was founded in 1914 and the:

magazine’s politics were liberal and progressive, and as such concerned with coping with the great changes brought about by middle-class reform efforts designed to remedy the weaknesses in America’s changing economy and society.

The New Republic seems now a home for what appears to be lunatics.  Consider this recent contribution in an article titled Climate Kings – How a new generation of authoritarian leaders are using climate change to seize power:

If any lesson can be drawn from the power struggle in the Maldives, it is that people who feel threatened by an outside force, be it foreign invaders or rising tides, often seek reassurance. That reassurance may come in the form of a strongman leader, someone who tells them all will be well, the economy will soar, the sea walls hold. People must only surrender their elections, or their due process, until the crisis is resolved. This is perhaps the most overlooked threat of climate change: Major shifts in the global climate could give rise to a new generation of authoritarian rulers, not just in poorer countries or those with weak democratic institutions, but in wealthy industrialized nations, too.

Oddly, this article describes a situation where the elected Prime Minister of the Maldives was deposed by the military for the purpose of reversing his climate change policies, policies to make climate change preparations central to his administration.  These included plans:

  • to move 360,000 (out of 420,000) Maldivian citizens to new homelands in Sri Lanka, India, or Australia; and
  • to make the Maldives the world’s first carbon-neutral country.

The Prime Minister also staged:

an underwater Cabinet meeting that turned him into a viral climate celebrity

and said:

What we need to do is nothing short of decarbonizing the entire global economy.  If man can walk on the moon, we can unite to defeat our common carbon enemy.

A country of 420,000 people seeking to become carbon neutral.  Sounds about as sensible as Australia’s current policy settings.  But not satisfied, the author of the article also wrote:

It’s not just developing nations that are at risk of opportunistic climate-fueled authoritarianism. Wealthy countries may possess the resources to insulate themselves from the near-term physical impacts of climate change—they can afford sea walls, emergency services, and air conditioning. But when conflicts over resources break out in the developing world, they are bound to generate crises that spill into wealthier countries.

It seems rather ironic that the author feels the authoritarianism will come from those seeking to reverse climate change policies rather than the other way around.

Spartacus awaits the New Republic’s article on why there can no longer be shark jumping because climate change will kill all the sharks.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus
Subscribe to the Sparta-Blog at eyamspartacus.wordpress.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The American Journal of Shark Jumping

  1. Grandma

    I drew a lesson from the Maldives coup. When your government falls into the hands of someone completely bonkers and potentially dangerous, the responsible adults need to do something about it. The Maldives had some responsible adults in the form of the army. Who are the responsible adults in Australian government? I’m not seeing any……

  2. stackja

    Liberal and progressive today means accepting AGW.

  3. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    Very odd for the Maldives to be so utterly mad on climate change when their real problem is breeding too many people for the islands. Maybe “climate change” causes that problem too! However seeing Islam is the only religion allowed there we now know why. Plus I am sure I read recently those islands are stable and not ‘going under’. The end of the story is as always the useless government who couldn’t run a chook raffle wants our money to fix what they created. More locusts!!!

  4. Roger

    Looks like I’ll have to scratch the Maldives from my list of possible escape destinations.

  5. .

    Oddly, this article describes a situation where the elected Prime Minister of the Maldives was deposed by the military for the purpose of reversing his climate change policies, policies to make climate change preparations central to his administration.

    That’s not actually cool.

    Would you support a woke general deposing of a conservative Australian PM?

    Remember, if they resist, there is bloodshed and people die.

    FFS we can’t go around giving thumbs up to military coups.

    I am having a hard time reconciling this with Rand, Locke, Burke, Aquinas, Mill, Buchannan, Rothbard, Krauthammer…

  6. I am having a hard time reconciling this with Rand, Locke, Burke, Aquinas, Mill, Buchannan, Rothbard, Krauthammer…

    Dot. You are correct in your comment, but what Spartacus wrote was not what Spartacus meant.

    Not endorsing military coups at all. But neither is Spartacus endorsing silent administrative coups in implementing policies that have no basis in rationality.

    And when you list Buchannan, are you referring to Pat Buchannan?

  7. .

    Yes. As in he’s against using military force without good reason.

    Now, why can’t they just have an election?

    As for silent administrative coups, in Australia, we ask the police to write our laws on self-defence and gun ownership.

    I’m not really sure what The New Republic has specifically done wrong here. They slowly turned sour after Bill Clinton retired.

  8. As for silent administrative coups, in Australia, we ask the police to write our laws on self-defence and gun ownership.

    Not just police. Look at any regulatory agency – ASIC, APRA, ACCC are ones Spartacus is familiar with, but for sure there are plenty others. Lazy parliaments and dumb delegating to agencies.

    One of reasons (not only reason) Spartacus supported Brexit (not as if he had a vote though) is that citizens delegate power to politicians and the politicians have no right to on-delegate to unelected bureaucrats whether in Brussels or Canberra or Sydney.

Comments are closed.