Why Elitist Liberals are Rallying to Support Waxman, and Why a True Progressive will Support Dingell

I have read countless blogs from journalists who claim to be progressive, supporting Waxman's attempt to remove Dingell from his seat as the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Apparently, it is now progressive to care about the environment and not care about people who need jobs and health care.  

Waxman, 69, (and not exactly a hot young newcomer to Washington) represents one of the wealthiest districts in the country.  Dingell represents a blue collar working class Detroit area; he has not been anti-environment, he has been pro jobs.  It is very easy to sit in a wealthy district in California and talk only about the environment without even mentioning job loss or health care.

When legislation is drafted that will put standards on an industry that will result in massive job loss for a constituency, as a congressman, you have an obligation to vote against that legislation.  Dingell has voted against some environmental bills, he has also drafted the clean air legislation that passed.  In fact, Dingell recently received a 100 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters.  

But, calling out Dingell's record and pointing to two or three times in the man's 50 year history in the House where he did not support the environment is typical elitists' tactics.  We all know that politics is about compromising and sometimes voting for or against a bill despite its unrelated and added contents. This is elitist because it assumes those of us reading these over simplified articles do not understand how the voting system works.  

If you want to play the game of record then bring it on.  Every single year that Dingell has been in congress he has introduced a bill for universal health care.  Congressman Dingell is in favor of energy standards, but not at the result of massive job loss.  

Green Manufacturing is the answer.  Being discussed in Michigan now is the concept of moving the massive industrial assets toward green manufacturing.  The answer is not setting high standards on the automotive industry, these standards will not be followed and the production and consumption of cars will plummet.  The answer is to create new jobs and industry that creates green and viable alternative energies.  

I am a Leftist, I believe people need jobs, health care and a green future.  Waxman does not seem to see past the green veil that there is more to progress than just the environment.  

My view of this epic confrontation goes back to the mid-1980's and Dingell's persistent opposition to an acid rain title.  He said then that it would jeopardize jobs.  That's not how it worked out.  The single-biggest contributor to members of Congress in one of those years was "Citizens for the Sensible Control of Acid Rain" - an industry front.  That the K Street crowd are out in force now is testament to the fear being engendered by the specter of a Waxman chairmanship.  Frank O'Donnell pretty much hits every nail right on the head here.  A Waxman chairmanship would really enhance our efforts to enact strong legislation - on renewables, on climate change, and, quite frankly, on green jobs - and much sooner rather than later.  

While I certainly agree that Chairman Dingell has by no means been
anti-environment over his career, he has at times proven to be
anti-innovation. The greatest economic growth correlates closely with the
times of great innovation. And while I also agree that green manufacturing
represents a significant part of the answer, big industry should not dictate the terms of innovation to suite their own pace--a route John Dingell oftentimes prefers.

For a timely example, let us turn to the automobile industry.  Remember that one of the primary reasons that they have been hemorrhaging jobs is their failure to innovate along with the times, thanks largely to one John Dingell.  Keep in mind the auto companies have cut thousands of jobs over the last two decades while continuing to fight any progress on efficiency standards including opportunities as recently as last year.  Only recently, after over 50 years in Congress and thousands of jobs lost did John Dingell concede even a modest compromise pushing the auto industry to get with the times.

Bottom line is, when the federal government tried to act on fuel efficiency for
cars and trucks, John Dingell constantly stood in the way. Now states are
trying to act and John Dingell is standing in the way. His lack of
vision helped pave the destructive path leading to the current auto crisis.
Now the auto industry wants a no-strings bailout without any conditions for green innovation or increased fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. While we can hope that Chairman Dingell helps steer this money towards helping the auto companies retool their practices to create more efficient cars and trucks in order to preserve jobs here in the
US, such a result is doubtful. We would have no such worries with Henry Waxman at the helm.

Dealing effectively with the climate crisis will require innovation across all sectors
of the economy.  John Dingell is far more likely to try to protect the coal
industry that has been losing jobs for years despite the fact that any number of metrics show that coal provides fewer jobs than solar and wind.  If we have learned
anything during this election season, it is that good judgment is just as
important, if not more so, than experience. Henry Waxman has consistently
proven to have both, while Dingell can only ever guarantee one of the two.
It's time for a change.

Henry Waxman has a vision more in line with the needs of our time. He will
be the leader we need on the most pressing issues we face. I for one
certainly hope he wins the Chairmanship so we can finally get to work.