By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a devastating flash flood in Texas, the article draws parallels to the political consequences of Governor Michael Dukakis’ response to a blizzard in 1978. It criticizes Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s climate change denial amidst a series of catastrophic weather events. The piece also lambasts Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill proposing to criminalize weather modification, dismissing it as unfounded. Furthermore, the article examines the complex relationship between Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen and former President Donald Trump in light of agricultural concerns.
Read the original article here
How many disasters must happen in Texas before Greg Abbott stops denying climate change? The overwhelming consensus, as it appears, is that there is no number. It’s a sobering thought, really. Based on what’s been observed and expressed, the prevailing sentiment is that the forces at play here run deeper than just a simple disagreement about scientific facts. It’s about ideology, allegiances, and the financial incentives that often underpin political decisions.
One of the key themes is that Abbott, like many in his political sphere, is beholden to an ideology that downplays or outright denies the reality of climate change. Some feel that this is a fundamental part of his identity and his role within the Republican party. Any acknowledgement of climate change would require a major shift in his position, something that seems highly unlikely given the current political landscape and his own entrenched beliefs.
The influence of the oil industry is another critical factor. Several people have pointed out that there are powerful financial interests at stake. Money talks, and when the oil and gas industry is funding campaigns and lobbying efforts, it creates a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo. Acknowledging climate change, and the need for significant policy changes, would directly threaten the profitability of these corporations, and by extension, those who benefit from their financial support.
It’s also been suggested that Abbott’s personal experiences, or lack thereof, may play a role. Some commenters feel that he doesn’t have empathy for others. It’s a tough assessment, but the perceived lack of concern for constituents, even in the face of devastating events, is a common thread. Some even go as far as to say that his denial is not a mistake or a misstep, but a feature of his political project.
Some people are convinced the core of the issue isn’t about facts or evidence; it is an actively chosen path. According to some, these individuals are committed to a specific belief system. In this view, acknowledging climate change would mean acknowledging the potential for disaster.
The suggestion that Abbott would “blame the Democrats” or find other scapegoats, even in the face of the worst disasters, is telling. It shows how deep the denial runs, and how ingrained the political game has become. It’s not about finding solutions or helping people; it’s about maintaining power and protecting the interests of those who provide it.
In all this, there’s an undercurrent of cynicism, a sense of resignation. The idea that Texans will continue to vote for leaders like Abbott, regardless of the consequences, is a recurring theme. People are asking, not just how many disasters will it take for Abbott to change, but when will Texans stop voting for him? This suggests a recognition that the problem is not just the actions of one man, but a larger issue of political accountability and voter behavior.
The comments also highlight a broader issue: the role of empathy and compassion in leadership. If a leader doesn’t care about the suffering of their constituents, it is difficult to imagine any event that would shift their priorities. The focus shifts from the number of disasters to the values of the leadership.
Another point is that Abbott is seen as a “company man.” He is considered to be following the policies and supporting the interests of those who have helped him. This perspective makes it clear that climate change denial isn’t just a belief; it is a core aspect of his job.
Perhaps most tragically, the overall sense is that Abbott’s position is immutable. His denial, they argue, is a fundamental part of who he is and what he represents. They suggest it might take a miracle to change his mind and his policies.