Skip to main content

Politics, change, and the Deepwater Horizon

The story is that we need BP, as they are the only party with the closest thing to the know-how to handle this spill and which has the responsibility to do so.  I'm not sure I buy that.  They were knowingly irresponsible in the construction of their well; they seem to be pulling the wool over our eyes on the amount of oil that has escaped their well; and they apparently either do not have the will or the ability to handle this by themselves in a timely manner.  It has been five weeks.  We've seen oil washing up on our shores now.  If things continue at this rate, we can expect our present problems to increase, and to see oily hurricanes, once tropical storm season hits.

More clearly needs to be done.  Current public and governmental pressure is not enough.  Nor are the actions being taken by BP or the various local and federal agencies at work.  People can feel this.  Recently, there have been comments from both 'the right' and 'the left' that this crisis is Obama's political doom, his Katrina.   At present, that seems entirely possible, though we haven't gotten there yet.

The bigger, much more direct political loser here is obviously BP, and the rest of the oil companies, by extension.  Attention is now being paid to the cozy, accommodating relationships between regulators and 'big oil'.  Questions of the safety of off-shore drilling carry far more weight than a couple months ago, when Obama partially lifted the moratorium on new drill sites.  More pointed campaigns are being made regarding the need for cleaner, renewable energy sources.  The President has a chance to harness these movements, to turn this crisis (if it must be compared to a Bush-era disaster) from his Katrina-to-be into an environmental 9/11.

Obama ought to drop a rhetorical hammer on BP and its compatriots, and then quickly pivot to the answer: a crusade for better sources of fuel, a new and greener infrastructure, and a reinvigorated industrial sector focused on these needs, creating a healthier, safer, more secure nation, and a new economy.  This is the sort of vision, the kind of leadership Americans desperately crave in times of despair.  We want hope for a better tomorrow.

It shouldn't be a hard sell.  Recent wars, economic and environmental crises, global competition, and (less directly) that amorphous anger we keep hearing about on the news all the make the case for change.  Change that Obama has already called for in both concrete and general terms.  This is the change that we can believe in.  It's also the change Obama needs in order to distance himself from the incompetent early handling of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Bush was able to jump away from responsibility for allowing the terror attacks of 9/11, mostly by refocusing our anger, dismay, and desire for action.  Obama could learn from that, and actually accomplish something useful at the same time.  So why isn't he?


Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Magical Unrealism

The same men who say global warming is a hoax, Obamacare has been failing for eight years, and abstinence-only sex-ed works are also convinced even basic gun control is an impossible and useless approach which would only make us less safe. These are also the dudes most likely to tell you black and brown folk have it too good, Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, and Sharia law is being forced on American legal systems. I wonder if there's some sort of overarching thread or theme to all this.