I believe there is a general tacit agreement as to what most people would like to see in the culture and society in which they live. This is in general true of all people across cultures and across time. We want to live in a world that is free from the ravages and devastation of sin. We long for a time before the fall, or a time when the effects of the fall are no more (Rom. 8:18-24). Most people in the US today might not express this overarching belief in these terms – but this is the world we would like to live in. This is tantamount to saying that we want is what is “the best”. Discounting the possibility of some strange type of mental illness, no one wants something that is “the worst”. I also believe that we can roughly agree on what is “best”. When someone disagrees with us on a political economy policy issue, we should grant that the person with whom we disagree wants ultimately the same thing that we want. In recent years, it sometimes appears by our political discourse that we are divided into two completely separate tribes with completely separate end goals. I do not believe this is true. Most of us ultimately would like to see the same thing. Last week Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s and Edward Markey’s offices introduced H. Res. 109, the New Green Deal, in Congress. No one wants to see the earth destroyed. Everyone wishes we could return the planet to a pre-fall pristine condition. Everyone wishes that we could exercise perfect stewardship as we exercise dominion. No one wishes the dire predictions a climate change to occur.

When I say that all of us want “the best”, I do not mean that we will be in perfect lockstep agreement asked to the detail of what the best entails. With respect to the environment, the picture of the ideal will differ in detail from person-to-person. But, there will be general agreement that everyone will want what is best for the natural environment. Part of a properly understood individualism that is foundational to western culture is to respect the thoughts and wishes other human beings. We must treat each other with respect and dignity. When we do disagree with someone about the detail about individuals’ visions of what makes up “the best”, we must respect other individuals views. This mutual respect should define our dialogue and discussion. We should realize that there is a little bit of the utopian in all of us.

Our  political economy disagreements come into clear focus over how much of the shared vision of the good is attainable and how we best work to bring the vision to fruition. It is at this level where we can have debate and discussion over policy issues. We always need to remember that we agree with people in the ultimate big picture vision who disagree with us on the detail and the how we go about achieving the vision. Remembering that we have this common goal should help the dialogue to be both civil and fruitful. Certainly, discussions will be heated, but they should always be respectful. Any healthy dynamic society will have people who are more progressive and people who are more conservative. An element of progress in society is the discussion, dialogue, and debate between those who are more progressive and those who are more conservative. Those who are more conservative must listen to those who are more progressive and those who are more progressive must listen to those who are more conservative. When conservatives talk past progressives and progressives talk past conservatives, discussion, dialogue, and debate is not as fruitful as it could be. We need to remember that there is commonality as to the ultimate goal.

The debate can be quashed by an over reaching government. By the grace of God, government suppression has not been a consistent problem in democratic western culture – but these freedoms are not necessarily permanent. In fact, I fear they are rather fragile.

There are many politicians and commentators, both on the right and on the left, that are not taking seriously the content of the Green New Deal Resolution. Many of these politicians and commentators see H. Res. 109 as an incoherent and inchoate utopian wish list. In the immediate term, this is true. In the longer term, H. Res. 109 is a detailed vision of the “best”. It is not detailed in a tactical or strategic sense, but it does represent a vision of political economy. The transformation of American society the Green New Deal outlines is colossal. In fact, if we were to move in this direction over a 10-year period our government and nation would be unrecognizable. AOC and her cadre want what is best for the United States and the world. The Resolution deserves serious analysis and critique.

In fact, what will likely occur, is that piecemeal elements of H. Res. 109 will be drafted into serious legislation in the coming years. Taken bit by bit, policy by policy, arena by arena, H. Res. 109 will seem much more palatable. In isolation, each element of the Green New Deal will not cause the destruction of Western civilization as we know it – taken as a whole (as a socioeconomic blueprint) the Green New Deal will destroy American society in the sense that it will leave it unrecognizable and different – “New”. New in the sense that it removes economic freedoms that are foundational to our other freedoms.

People who believe that humanity is both constrained and restrained (either as a result all of the fall – sin, or people who do not accept a Judeo-Christian explanation for shortcoming – it is just the way it is) do not place primary emphasis on outcome. They tend to believe that be utopian outcomes are well named – they are nowhere. We might wish we can have a utopian outcome, but the wish is but a pipe dream. Hence, people ascribing to a “constrained vision” (using Thomas Sowell’s terminology) place emphasis on process and not on and on an unattainable outcome. Perfect outcomes are not attainable, the best we can do is to develop a process that is likely to give us the best outcome and then continually adapt and adopt leading to the best attainable outcome. The process that is most equitable and just treats everyone as equally as is possible and provides opportunity in as fair a manner as is possible for all. The final outcome is not known with certainty. Information and knowledge that leads to the outcome will be created and generated in the future. This is the rule of law. To define the result before the conclusion of the process (e.g. from H. Res. 109: “millions of good, high wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security”, “spurring massive growth and clean manufacturing”, etc.) is to promise an outcome that ultimately will deny the rule of law in order to force the outcome.

The content of H. Res. 109 takes us down the fast road to serfdom. Here in lies both its absurdity and its true threat.