Thomas Friedman, who apparently coined the phrase “Green New Deal” years ago, believes that the GND can and should occur within a capitalist economy. AOC and her friends, on the other hand, have hitched a social democratic agenda, including a jobs guarantee and a massive increase in the minimum wage, to the GND. Who’s right?
From the perspective of an economist and a historian, Friedman is. The GND depends on innovation; a rigorously capitalist country provides both the incentives and the wealth for that kind of innovation. Just ask yourself: how many innovative products came out of the Soviet Union, as compared to the US? That’s what I thought.
From a political perspective, the story is a bit mixed. Obviously, a version of the GND which includes a large expansion of the welfare state is a harder lift in red states, assuming the typical electorate, than the Friedman version. On the other hand, you could argue that even the Friedman GND can’t get through the system without the “revolution,” and the “revolution” is implausible without social democratic economic measures. As a result, there is a case of sorts to be made for the AOC approach.
For me, the “revolution” is a fairy tale. The electorate in 2020 is not going to be dramatically different than the electorate in 2016, or any previous election. The mixture of regulation, subsidies, and legislation that is necessary for the success of the GND is perfectly compatible with our current economic system; Obama’s green program included the first two, and almost the third. The winner of the debate, therefore, is Friedman.