Isn't it weird that if Black Lives Matter becomes unpopular, so does addressing climate change? Since the Democrats own both civil rights and environmentalism, an election year in which Democrats lose is a loss for both of these tentpole issues. Democratic insiders, such as Bernie Sanders, even suggest that Hillary Clinton lost because of her emphasis on identity politics. In this way, then, feminism has held back carbon emission guidelines, which is odd.
Since Democrats and Republicans roughly take turns occupying Congress, then environmentalists may have to wait a couple of election cycles before having the spotlight again. If the Democrats continuously fail, then environmentalists theoretically could switch parties, which is a gamble that isn't guaranteed to pay off. Fifty years could go by without any action on climate change thanks to the rigid coalitions inherent in the American two-party system. So, the question is, Is this flaw inherent to democracy, or is it possible to create a version of democracy that doesn't create strange bedfellows?