Posted by
Patrick Henry on Monday, June 14, 2010 7:05:37 PM
Controversy is raging around Barack Obama's handling of the BP Gulf oil spill
disaster. His supporters say he's doing all that can possibly be done. Detractors
argue that he's not doing enough. The question is begged: just what is he doing?
Talking an increasingly tough line, Obama has promised to keep his "boot on
the neck" of the British oil giant and to find out whose behind to kick. His justice
department has opened a ciminal investigation to determine whether material
wrongdoing caused the spill, and he has ratcheted up pressure on BP to set aside
billions to clean the mess up and repay those who were damaged by it. He has
also made four trips to the affected region, expressing his outrage and frustration
at the continued outflow and the inexorable invasion of sensistive marshlands by
the greasy, killing slime. Tomorrow night he plans a national address. In fairness
to Obama and his predecessor G.W. Bush who had to deal with similar devastation
from hurricane Katrina, there are some disasters that simply overwhelm any
president's (or nation's) capacities, and whether a president is doing "enough" is
enitirely a matter of whether one is a spectator or a victim.
What is of concern, however, is that the major action focus remains on plugging
the leak rather than remediating and limiting the damage. While there is some logic
in that, maximum damage can only be averted by greater balance between the two.
Dozens, if not hundreds of ingenius Americans have come forward with clean-up
proposals ranging from purification machinery like that suggested to congress by
Kevin Costner, to mats of highly absorbent human hair, to berms made of hay, to
Governor Bobby Jindal's sand berms, to organic moss enzymes that absorb the oil,
to eco-friendly compounds that perform similarly. The distressing thing is that BP
has entertained only a very few of these ideas, and the inventors or proponents
admit that they have never been contacted by government officials. So what gives?
Obviously, the concern is principally financial. BP wants to do as little clean-up
as America will accept and do it as cheaply as possible. While adopting one or
more of the proposed technologies might get the job done, buying and deploying
them would also cost BP millions, if not billions of dollars.Obama is already in a
money bind, now forced to consider repugnant and oppressive new taxes to support
his equally unpopular domestic agenda and two wars. He doesn't (a) want to pay
for anything he can get BP to pay for, and (b) wish to divert any funding from his precious
entitlement programs. He is also materializing as an arch-enemy of small businesses,
many of whom would prosper were their particular technologies selected for use
in cleaning up the massive spill. So he is stuck with the conundrum that he is all
in on the notion that government should do and control everything ("BP is responsible
but we are in charge") and the fact that government doesn't have a ready answer and
couldn't really afford to pay for it if it did.
Most disconcerting of all, and the thing that will ultimately provoke the most
condemnation, is Obama's now obvious intent to politicize the entire matter, as he
has done with nearly every issue his government has faced. Using the spill as proof
of the inherent evil of big oil, he has promised to double down on his drive for
clean energy, by which he means cap-and-tax, business-stifling, job-killing
legislation designed to force Americans to use less energy in general, and less oil
in particular. This is opportunistic political cynicism of the crassest kind, and is
made the more reprehensible in light of the loss of income of Gulf Coast residents
and lack of movement in protecting and reclaiming their at-risk shorelines. One
example of this politicization is the creation of a panel of experts to study the
drilling question, followed by the willful, politically motivated distortion of their
report to suggest that they were recommending the very opposite of what they
in fact recommended, and the tardy announcement that the result of the report
had been decreed in advance by the administration. (For more on this see
yesterday's post, "The Subornation of Science").
So has Obama done enough? Yes, and no. He has done enough to absolve
himself of responsibility, use the disaster to stoke his political agenda, deceit-
fully compare it to 9/11, send his political organizers out to raise money off of
it and posture as the tough guy. In blaming, finger-pointing, trash-talking,
politicizing and manipulating he gets an "A." But as in so many other areas the
BP spill illustrates starkly the difference between a politician and a problem-
solver. The former talks about problems, the latter fixes them. During the election
critics pointed to Obama's lack of real world experience. Now those who wouldn't
listen will pay for the misjudgement in spades. So, in terms of real solutions, the
president gets an "F."
So we have a congress that can jam through a healthcare reform bill Amercans
hate, yet can't pass a budget (or won't because they know the real numbers that
reflect their spending intent would get them promptly unelected). And we have a
president who can appoint bogus commissions whose results he pre-dictates, go
on television and brag about kicking butts, compare an oil spill (apples) to 9/11
(oranges) and do not much else. When will we ever learn to elect someone who
has actually solved a problem during his professional career, who will act instead
of just talk, who will engage in real-world risk management and who will cease
making everything about him and his agenda?