This isn’t a surprise to me, but it is a mistake, imo.
The Sierra Club, imo, has a long history of myopically focusing on conservation through a narrow, neoliberal perspective. I think truly protecting nature and fostering unity between humans and nature requires an ecosocialist approach. Backing people who buy elections is like supporting left-wing authoritarians: the message might be right, but the outcomes are never going to work out of you degrade the democratic systems that hold power accountable.
I’ve been surprised by several people and institutions I trust backing Styer. Dr. Leah Stokes, who I deeply respect, is excited by Steyer: https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qigftpfjt2mrkq23skrcuedw/post/3mjwxari5w22h
From a policy perspective I like what I hear. If only he weren’t a billionaire self funding his campaign… At any rate, not my election to vote in.
I totally understand it. It’s very hard to resist someone who tells you everything you want to hear.
But we should ask what the effect of someone winning is likely to be, not what they say they’re going to do. Gavin Newsom ran on single payer healthcare too. Someone running on it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
In Newsom’s case, it wasn’t going to happen because he was a lying snake. In Steyer’s case, it takes policy expertise and political acumen, and unfortunately, he’s spent the equivalent of 2,000 UCLA bachelors degrees trying to obscure the fact that he’s not actually qualified to do politics.
I wish more people could see this. I’m not just voting against him because I resent him for being rich. It’s because he can’t spend enough to convince me that he’s actually capable of delivering, because the skills it takes to do so are the same skills it takes to get elected without buying elections, which means his money is just proof that he can’t actually get things done.
Also, frankly, I have no reason to trust him too, but that’s not even the biggest problem.
