Well, here's the thing. His post has a wider argument, and from the terms of his argument, his conclusion is correct.
Does it have a wider argument? Let's take a look:
Weirdly, I was reading an article about renewable water, and it just occurred to me that nothing the Republicans do is sustainable over the long run. The way many do policy isn't sustainable in the long run; the way they market themselves and campaign will not be sustained in the future unless it's by someone who acts like a Republican and prioritizes short-term gains.
So far, we have "the way they do policy/market themselves/campaign" is unsustainable... what's the argument? What are those ways? What am I supposed to refute? How do they market themselves or campaign that are unsustainable, I don't even know what "ways" are intended in that statement, nor am I sure even Gergar does. Policy, I could at least guess there's an energy and environment element to, which I would argue that using the full resources available to us is the only path to sustainability, we'll never reach the next generation of technologies if we kneecap ourselves right now, actual sustainability will require we generate more electricity than we do now, not less, and fossil fuels are what power us building the infrastructure to reach that point. But then he gives a specific and its this:
The general tariffs led to wars and famines at worst and shortages for both sides at best. I would argue the Democrats would have tried to coup Maduro but wouldn't try to take his oil and rare earths or be as brazen about it and would follow international law, which is much more sustainable than unilateral action. The application of the Monroe Doctrine in such a way isn't sustainable because it requires the cooperation of various countries in South America.
Unsustainable is tariffs and actions against Maduro? Like, what?
A) Tariffs have been used for centuries, they're plenty sustainable. If there is an unsustainable factor of Republican economic policy, it's the refusal to raise taxes anywhere, tariffs actually help there. Taking action against a regime pretty much everyone but Seanchaidh opposes I guess isn't sustainable, but that's not a circumstances you want sustained, that's something we want to change, that's the point of taking action. Calling either of those things unsustainable doesn't make sense, but also...
B) Neither of those things are core Republican stances. These are not things that the Republican party even agrees upon at present, more or less long term. We have interventionists and isolationists, we have tariff supporters and free trade absolutists. I'm not sure I would even be comfortable betting on those two policies standing to the end of Trump's term, I highly doubt those are even ongoing arguments 10 years from now.
And then we get to this:
In every field, the Republicans have picked the short-term option over the sustainable option. We will if we haven't already hit peak oil; natural gas is next, alongside uranium/non-thorium fission nuclear energy. They still operate like it's the 20th century. "We're building/doing stuff fast, consequences be damned" is the doctrine of the Republicans.
Peak oil. Seriously. The conversation at this historical moment is where peak demand will be, as gloabl oil usage that had quadrupled over the end of the 20th century has nearly flatlined and is predicted to start declining soon, and Gergar is worried we're going to run out imminently. And then Uranium supplies is an issue? Known and accessible uranium could power the globe moving forward for longer than the US has existed without any further advances in technology. Is it porblematically short term thinking to use a solution that could sustain humanity for centuries? Is that core to the Republicn party?
Which of these arguments do you want to sign your name to? What about this was really convincing to you that Republicans are unsustainable in every way?
