Connect with us


OPINION: The Green New Deal and the Hegelian Dialectic

Even conservatives may unwittingly stand by while policies that are still very radical are passed.



When socialist darling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her radical, far-reaching, liberty-ending, economy-killing, now-notorious Green New Deal, it was more widely mocked than it was praised.

The resolution, which proposes everything from an end to the American energy sector and eliminating air travel to guaranteed income for those “unwilling” to work and killing farting cows (the latter two being from the resolution’s contested FAQ section which AOC’s camp quickly backed away from), is about as hilarious as it is terrifying.

Hilarious, because it’s so incredibly unrealistic that any of it could be implemented and that anyone in their right mind would think it would do little else than send the most prosperous nation in the history of the world into a nosedive, terrifying because lawmakers in Washington appear to be serious about it.

Trending: Pelosi On Live TV — Trump Won’t Be President Next Year ‘One Way or Another’ [VIDEO]

To hear that many members of the Democratic party are also balking at the resolution may cause many conservatives to feel relieved, but we should not necessarily count on saying goodbye to the ideas of the Green New Deal anytime soon.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?

  • Will You Vote For Donald Trump in 2020?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Whether it’s by design or just how things will happen, we ought to be aware that the Green New Deal may end up being as revolutionary as it aims to be, not because it will be enacted, but it could pave the way for far more effective policies with the same long-term, radical goals, goals that stand in stark opposition to everything we stand for as a nation.

If you’re a philosophy buff, you’ve probably heard of the Hegelian dialectic, which Wikipedia describes as “comprises three stages of development: first, a thesis or statement of an idea, which gives rise to a second step, a reaction or antithesis that contradicts or negates the thesis, and third, the synthesis, a statement through which the differences between the two points are resolved.”

Sounds nice, right? This is definitely a valid method of reaching an agreement, which sounds particularly appealing in an era when our nation is so divided.

But when it comes to the Green New Deal and the more moderate views of the Democrats, what has happened with this radical piece of proposed policy is the goalposts of their “thesis” has been moved so very far to the left, that the ultimate “synthesis” is likely to just be that much more radical.

The Green New Deal is implausible. But our nation is no stranger to left-wing economic and environmental policy, either. The original New Deal was, in essence, socialistic, a point which the new radicals in Congress love to point.

Whether we like it or not, with the Green New Deal as the new benchmark for policy to combat climate change, now anything more moderate may seem far more appealing to voters.

And even conservatives may unwittingly stand by while policies that are still very radical are passed.

We can’t take AOC’s foolishness or the laughably outrageous nature of the Green New Deal to be something we get used to. If you believe in the founding principles of our great nation, if you believe in individuality and liberty, if you believe in leaving a prosperous generation and beautiful planet for future generations, fight the Green New Deal and radicalism in Washington with everything you’ve got.

Save conservative media!


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Omar Demands Trump ‘Step Down’ Over GAO Report, But Obama Violated Federal Law 7 Times

How about them apples?

John Salvatore



Rookie lawmaker Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has enough problems of her own to be worrying about. After all, the FBI, ICE, and another federal agency are looking into potential crimes she may have committed, including student loan fraud and immigration fraud. Omar doesn’t need to tweet silly stuff like this, for reasons that will be made abundantly clear in about 30 seconds. Just keep scrolling… Here’s her misleading tweet: Here’s why Omar’s tweet is nonsensical, via Hot Air: In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA. Continued: Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle. Also, did Omar know that the Obama administration was called out SEVEN TIMES by the GAO? Where were calls for Barack to step down? Nevertheless, if a mere GAO finding is sufficient to justify impeachment, then President Barack Obama ought to have been impeached at least seven times over for each of the following cases in which…

Continue Reading


CNN Reports That Lev Parnas Spoke With Trump, But He Just Admitted He Never Did (Details)

What is going on here?

John Salvatore



Out of nowhere, after the House of Representatives had voted to impeach President Trump, Lev Parnas appears as if a stripper from an oversized birthday cake. How did that come about? And why is CNN reporting something that even Parnas himself is denying? From Washington Examiner: Indicted businessman Lev Parnas said he did not speak directly with President Trump about a pressure campaign against Ukraine that sought to benefit Trump politically, despite earlier reports to the contrary. Last November, CNN reported that Parnas told close associates he had spoken to Trump. “At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting,” CNN wrote. Parnas allegedly aided Giuliani in a campaign to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his involvement in a potential abuse of power to protect his son, Hunter, from an investigation into some rather shady business dealings. Parnas has also handed over some documents and messages to the House Intelligence Committee that includes more detailed information about the “pressure campaign” which also includes a letter Giuliani sent to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The letter seems to indicate that Giuliani was acting at the direction of the president. The president commented on this by denying he knew anything about the letter and claimed not to know Parnas.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend