Climate Hushing Strategy May Cost Democrats At The Polls

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription, on Patreon, or on Stripe. Help us produce all of the high-quality, original content we publish week after week despite the challenges of content-scraping AI, antisocial media, inflation, and other hurdles.

I have a neighbor who often wears a T-shirt that says, “We The People Are Pissed Off!” I suspect it is meant to indicate his support for MAWA (Make America White Again), but it could just as easily apply to many in the US electorate today, as grocery prices, medical costs, and housing expenses soar into the stratosphere.

The level of anger all across America is palpable. You can feel it when you step outside. It’s like the drop in atmospheric pressure that precedes a violent thunderstorm. You can’t quite put your finger on it, but you know something serious is coming your way.

Gelatinous Blobs

Last week, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen excoriated their Republican colleagues who had just voted not to rein in the unhinged president over his failed war on Iran. They called them “gelatinous blobs” who will not stand up to Donald Trump and “rubber stamps” for his war on Iran.

They have a point, but it is not just Repugnicans who are spineless. Over the past 40 years, Congress has quite willingly ceded many of its powers to the executive branch. It’s a political ploy that insulates them from the anger of voters. If some faceless bureaucrat makes a new policy that annoys folks — a policy that should have been created by Congress — that person gets the blame and the members of the House and Senate get to keep their jobs.

It’s quite a brilliant strategy, actually, and it’s one of the reasons these folks get re-elected more than 95 percent of the time. But, sadly, it destroys the carefully constructed system of checks and balances created by the Founding Forebears, who never envisioned the legislative branch would give up its constitutional powers so willingly.

The last time Democrats were in control of the government, they expended a lot of political capital on subjects that did not resonate with many voters, things like who should use which bathroom and transgender athletes in sports. Those things are important, but are a big turn-off for many voters. Hammering on those topics may have given an unintended advantage to conservatives reactionaries and helped put a tired old man back in the White House.

What The Polling Shows

You might think with a vitally important midterm election coming up in a few months, Democrats would be talking loudly about things that are on the minds of voters. A recent Gallup poll found that, “At least four in 10 U.S. adults have expressed ‘a great deal’ of concern about [climate change] throughout the past decade…..Currently, 44 percent of US adults worry a great deal about global warming or climate change — among the highest in the full trend since 1989, along with 46 percent measured in 2020 and 45 percent in 2017.

“In addition…..another 22 percent worry ‘a fair amount.” The increased worry since 2017 is seen among Democrats and independents, while Republicans are less worried now than they were in the past…..At the same time, there has been a decline in the percentage saying the effects of global warming are generally exaggerated, down to 32 percent this year from 41 percent last year. This year’s figure is the lowest Gallup has measured since 2006 (30 percent) though it is similar to the 2016-2018 readings of 33 to 34 percent.”

An increase in awareness — and concern — about a changing climate is certainly understandable, with giant wildfires raging across Canada and Europe. And yet, according to Grist, senior Democratic strategists are telling their candidates to soft pedal the climate angle and focus on pocketbook issues. That is not a bad strategy actually. Readers may recall that one of the big factors in the 2024 election was the high price of eggs. And it is fully understood by all that, to govern, you must first get elected. So-called pocketbook issues have always resonated with voters and any politician would be foolish to ignore them.

Getting Organized

Grist says a core of grassroots political organizers are urging Democrats to put a stronger focus on climate change issues. The Guardian reported last week these activists claim the tendency among Democratic candidates to avoid the topic — known as “climate hushing” — is misguided. During the congressional recess this summer, demonstrators organized by the environmental advocacy coalition Climate Action Campaign are calling on representatives to put climate back on the political agenda.

“The long history of the climate movement proves that we move fastest when there’s real pressure from the grassroots,” said Bill McKibben. “All the evidence shows those grassroots are as worried about [the] climate crisis as they ever were.” Those events are set to take place over the next month in at least 20 states and will involve local Sierra Club chapters, the senior citizen led climate organization Third Act, and local affiliates of the NAACP. “It’s the broadest brush that we are working with,” said Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign. “The message is, talk about climate, climate can’t wait, and we want to see action.” Bernie Sanders would fully support that idea.

In Michigan, participants will demonstrate against Republican representative Bill Huizenga, who voted for the climate-killing One Big Beautiful Bill, which gave a huge federal handout to fossil fuel companies. In Arizona, activists will meet with the Democratic representative Adelita Shirley Grijalva and encourage her to continue talking about global warming. In other districts, organizers have circulated petitions calling on the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, to prioritize climate issues. They also plan to call on their elected representatives to connect the climate crisis to recent heatwaves.

The activists are feeling emboldened by recent research from the University of California Santa Barbara which found that emphasizing climate change was neutral to beneficial for Democratic candidates. Therefore, talking more about the issue does not alienate voters and can even increase support in competitive races, they claim.

Matto Mildenberger, a political science professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, told Grist the polling implies that climate change isn’t as politically toxic as it is made out to be, because about two thirds of respondents support a government program to invest in solar and wind energy no matter how its goal was framed — whether addressing climate change, developing new energy sources, or reducing pollution and protecting clean air. About 60 percent of the Republicans surveyed would back such a policy, and using the word “climate” did not impact their support.

Making Climate A Priority

When respondents were asked to choose between pairs of candidates with randomly assigned priorities, they were more likely to pick those who made climate change a top priority, Mildenberger found. Among all voters, it led to a 4.5 percentage point increase in the candidate getting selected, and for those open to voting Republican, it made no difference — though it hurt a candidate’s chances among committed Republicans. The polling also found that people who support climate action are far more motivated to vote than people who oppose it, which suggests that talking about climate change isn’t likely to lose votes.

Though the current gang that couldn’t shoot straight that is holding the US hostage often derides climate policy as a “scam” and a “hoax,” polling indicates most Americans are not onboard with that view. Another July poll from Data for Progress found that 61 percent of likely voters believe extreme weather has become more frequent over the past five years, including nearly half of Republicans. One month earlier, a Yale survey found that roughly two thirds of Americans are worried about global warming.

“Smart politicians will grab on this issue,” said McKibben. “There’s perhaps no other question where the gulf between MAGA and the general public is higher.” Alt said she saw climate hushing as “the climate denial of 2026. I don’t think that ignoring the climate crisis is smart politics. I think that it is dropping the ball on the biggest threat the US and the world faces,” she said.

70 years ago, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled Profiles In Courage, in which he told of political leaders in American history who chose to do what was right, rather than what was politically expedient. Today, such a book could not be written because acts of political courage are virtually nonexistent. Now, people run for Congress because if you win, you are showered with political contributions and stock tips that will make you wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Who would be dumb enough to interrupt the gravy train?

The best we could hope for is a companion book entitled Profiles In Cowardice, a compendium of self-dealing and greed that would put those in it to shame. Is political courage necessarily an act of political suicide today? Many believe that to be so. And yet we hold out hope that some candidates will do the right thing, as limited as that prospect might be. Would you vote for someone who made addressing climate change a priority over someone who focused instead of the price of eggs? The results of the next election in November could be determined by how voters answer that question.