Political Culture: When the Levee Breaks (Again)

Jon Cummings June 19, 2008 9

If you’ve watched the TV news carefully this week, you may have noticed that somewhere amidst the all-Russert-all-the-time lovefest there were other events taking place – some of which might have benefited from some Russertian analysis.

Iowa flood damageThere are, of course, massive floods up and down the Mississippi River – a “500-year flood” that has taken out levees up and down the Iowa-Illinois border, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. The enormous damage to homes and lives has often taken a backseat to worries about the damage to the Midwest corn crop. (Less ethanol next winter! More food riots in Africa!)

There is the Bush-McCain pas de deux on oil drilling, with both men suddenly insisting that Congress open the waters off our shores to “exploration and exploitation” (as McCain put it) for the first time in 28 years. Failing to do so, one of them said (I can’t remember which – it’s hard to tell them apart), would doom our nation to many more years of gas prices like we’re seeing now ($4.63 at the local Chevron this afternoon).

And then there is the re-emergence of Rudy Giuliani to shore up McCain’s dipping foreign-policy numbers and to rationalize his slipping appreciation for American values. In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court decision restoring some measure of habeas corpus rights to Gitmo detainees – and with his 9/11 blinders enabling him to ignore the resurgent violence in Iraq and Afghanistan – Rudy trotted out an oldie but goodie, accusing Barack Obama of…wait for it…reverting to a “September 10 mindset” when it comes to applying the (god forbid) Constitution to our treatment of “enemy combatants.”

The media has treated these three developments separately, but to me they’re all part of the same story. Simply put, our nation’s disastrous energy policy is breaking us financially – and when it’s not busy doing that it’s getting us killed around the world, or avoiding the middleman and ravaging us at home via the type of extreme weather that just might portend a climate-change apocalypse. Out-of-control oil prices, Middle East instability and global warming are related problems that require a unified solution. It inevitably will be the task of the next president, even if it’s John McCain, to begin the long-delayed process of weaning this nation (and eventually the world) off of oil and other fossil fuels.

Bush and McCain are gambling that if they can get out front on combating high gas prices, they can blunt the impact of Al Gore, who returned ferociously to the stump on Monday and whose message is helping drive younger voters overwhelmingly to the Democrats. They’re also hoping that by harping exclusively on the need to lower gas prices in the short term, they can make us forget their (and the Republican Party in general’s) starring role in creating the conditions for our current crisis – i.e., the Iraq War, deregulation of the futures market, tax giveaways to the oil companies, hand-holding of the House of Saud, etc., etc.

Their misdirection has some chance of succeeding, if voters become mesmerized by those numbers clicking by ever more quickly on the gas pump. Never mind that the offshore-drilling gimmick is just as much a ruse as the gas-tax holiday to which McCain still clings – new exploration now wouldn’t result in increased supply (or the supposedly attendant lower gas prices) for at least 5-10 years, and the oil companies likely would just pass their drilling costs along to us. The GOP is counting on voters to ignore the larger issues of energy policy, and to forget the party’s complicity in creating our current mess, in favor of a simple question: Who will lower my gas prices sooner?

Simultaneously, McCain and his surrogates are banking on their ability to use the same old rhetorical tricks to make voters develop amnesia when it comes to the Bush-led Republicans’ abject failure to thwart al Qaeda, pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, secure our vulnerable ports and infrastructure, or unify the world community in anything beyond disgust at our recent policies and actions. Giuliani’s 9/11 obsession didn’t get him past Florida this winter, and the GOP’s tough-on-terror message finally got drowned out by their own scandals and incompetence in the ’06 midterms, yet here they go again. And who knows? Maybe they’ll succeed in turning Obama into the bogeyman.

However, there’s a much better chance that “conditions on the ground” – you know, that inconvenient set of verities that non-Republicans call “reality” – will overwhelm these Bush/McCain schemes. Events like the massive car bomb in Baghdad this week might tend to undercut the War Gurus’ “surge-is-working” mantra, while the Taliban’s brief takeover of Kandahar may blunt any attempts to resurrect the traditional “vote-Republican-or-die” message.

Bush's Katrina flyoverThis week’s revelations of shoddy post-Katrina work by Halliburton/KBR may remind folks that entrusting the government to corporate-purchased goons hasn’t worked out so well. And those pesky floods that pushed Bush into Tuesday’s “I’ve been to too many disasters” knee-slapper? Well, the best that conservative climate-change deniers can hope for is that the rising waters will push from public view the towns from Kansas and Oklahoma to Georgia and Virginia that were decimated by tornadoes the last couple months. Those folks are already waving their arms about and shouting, “Remember us?” Meanwhile, the American Red Cross is about to run out of money for disaster relief. Katrina victims? Fuhgeddaboutit. They’re so 2005.

Still, the burden falls on Obama (and Gore, and anyone else who’s willing to take up the challenge) to look beyond these day-to-day events – and even beyond the steadily climbing price of a barrel of oil – and convince Americans to take a good look at the big picture. Bill Richardson was the first presidential candidate to get this right, way back in the winter of ’07, when he said that we need a “space-race-level commitment” to transform our civilization from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy sources. Obama needs to pull the strings of our rapidly unraveling domestic and foreign policies together, and unite Americans behind the idea that such a transformation will at once revive our economy (by fast-tracking technological advancement and infrastructure conversions), eliminate our hat-in-hand reliance on the tumultuous societies of the Middle East, and, oh yeah, save the planet.

Even the most ambitious politicians insist that completing this transformation will require at least 50 years, but I say, screw that. Scientists are convinced that, with a sufficient investment of public and private funds, it should take no longer than a generation. Of course, that means 20-25 years of putting up with higher energy prices and other sacrifices; it also means two decades of fighting the oil companies tooth and nail for every concession along the way to eliminating their relevance entirely.

oil rig off Santa BarbaraThat’s OK; bring it on! You say the oil companies are clamoring for the ability to drill off our shores and tap into untold reserves of crude? Well, anybody who’s seen the repulsive way in which oil derricks have marred the vistas from the Pacific coast at Santa Barbara will be sickened by the notion of more offshore drilling. But let’s make a deal: Give the oil companies a limited window of time to explore and drill and rake in profits – say, 25 years. But for every oil rig they construct in U.S. coastal waters, they must also put up a couple thousand wind turbines in the Great Plains, or a few hundred solar panels in the desert Southwest – and they must not attempt to pass their costs onto consumers.

At the end of that quarter-century, the derricks must disappear. By then, if all the other sectors of the economy have done their jobs, demand for that oil will have dissipated anyway, and Big Oil and Big Coal should be well on its way to transforming themselves into Big Solar and Big Switchgrass. At that point, Americans hopefully will have commenced exporting our new technologies, vehicles and infrastructure to China, India and the world’s other emerging economies, all with a goal of reducing the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions 90 percent by 2050.

Obama digs inAll of this will require enormous sacrifices of time, convenience, hard work and, yes, money by governments, businesses and individuals. And sure, it’s a pipe dream. But, right now, so is filling up a gas tank for less than $60. So is a reasonable conclusion in Iraq – or capturing Osama bin Laden. And so is the idea that enough sandbags might stem the rising Mississippi – or that, once the polar ice cap finishes melting, there might be enough sandbags in the whole world to save the Florida coastline. We’ve already wasted eight years failing to solve any one of these problems. The time has come to start tackling them all at once, with a collective sense of urgency, commitment, and…hope. It’s time to dig in.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    What America has to come to terms with is that the country no longer is in control of its financial future. It's out of our hands, probably permanently.

    Recall a couple weeks ago how, on Tuesday, oil reserves were starting to fill up, US consumption was lagging back as people got more wary of unnecessary fuel usage. The pundits were all calling for normalization in a couple months time. And it appears that those gain were all due to user caution. It worked, or so it appeared. That Friday, with worldwide instability and China's unwavering need to fuel, the price shot up $10 more per barrel in a single day, bringing the overall P.P.B. to a staggering new record. The US did everything it was supposed to and it seemed to be working, but in the end in a global economy, it didn't matter.

    This is all to say that as the GOP fights to cling to old ways, and Lord knows former oil man Bush only sees progress in black gold, for the sane ones left it is clear that we're no longer the big dog in this fight, and if we persist in staying on this course, we'll be mauled.

    I don't suppose a price spike of $20. P.P.B. will drive that point home either.

  • http://avarana.blogspot.com MarlboroTestMonkey7

    Jon,
    While not being an expert, but what I think an informed individual; I'm quite sure there isn't any current or projected technology powerful or economically viable enough to bear the weight of actual -or increased future- needs. Historically speaking, only the introduction of a exponentially more powerful technology would replace the current dead end oil based structure.
    human / animal < carbon < oil < nuclear/? < wow

    Being it so, the Powers always try to maintain their status quo via any available way, including war, as politically preferrable (shows who's the boss) and cost effective measure (keeps the machine running), which in turn keeps the public docile and manageable. In fact, that's just where we stand today.

    As I see it, the situation asks for a sacrifice, not one that in the end cleanly reinstates our current wasteful levels, but a change of paradigm to a lower consumption model if we want -in the long run- to survive. I fear we are not strong enough for that.

  • JonCummings

    Well, Henry Ford's first engine couldn't have powered a Thunderbird, either, but he and his successors kept plugging away at it. While permanent solutions sufficient to solve our alternative-energy needs may not be in production right now, it is only through investment and R&D on a massive scale that those solutions will be reached.

    Of course, “investment” requires the availability of money, and individuals and corporations in our society have been well-trained to be very…stingy in their willingness to turn their money over to others without immediate reward. That will have to change, at least for awhile. Perhaps Bill Richardson's “Space-Race” model is only half the bargain; for much of the country (and the world), perhaps the other half is going to have to be a World War II-like period of temporary austerity and common sacrifice. Perhaps there's no one who can sell the American people on such an effort–but if there is one person in public life right now who might be able to do it, we're quite fortunate that he's currently running for president.

    It's a matter of priorities. Every year that we prioritize finding one more way to drain the oil lizard over the development of alternative energy sources, we make the mountain higher that we'll eventually have to climb. (Sorry for the mixed-cliche metaphor.)

    I doubt that the billions around the world who have come to expect motorized transportation and electricity (seven hours a day in Baghdad!! Woo-hoo!!!) will resign themselves to a return to an agrarian society, or even the steam-driven first century of the industrial revolution. Solutions will be found, eventually, unless we destroy ourselves first.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    Whoever can produce a comprehensive energy plan and convince the public it can work could have an election-winning issue. That's two “ifs.” First, the plan. Second, convincing the public.

    20% of our oil use is for “stationary” uses, i.e. non-transportation. Electric power generation, heating, running factory equipment, etc. Surely substitutes could be found for that 20%. That would greatly lessen import demand.

    But even in the process of weaning ourselves away from oil we need more domestic oil. Government has done little to incentivize domestic supply. I had a terse argument with an Obama fund raiser on the phone the other day when he pushed the windfall profits tax on oil companies. Why single them out? Google is making windfall profits. Why not sic the taxman on them? Beyond that, you tax something, you tend to get less of it. So don't claim the aim is to increase supply.

    Then there's the other brilliant Democrat strategy: Sue OPEC. Yeah, that'll bring 'em around. LOL. Liberals. Always a goldmine of unintentional comedy. Even Al Franken was never THAT funny.

    It isn't even good politics. I know many Democrats who favor domestic drilling. Oh well, the national polls show this. And yes, the same percentage favor measures to conserve through fuel efficiency standards and biofuels, as do I. (Though corn ethanol is just about the dumbest way to do it.)

  • JonCummings

    The economics of oil (and energy in general) are simultaneously impossible to understand, and easy to demagogue. Democrats in Congress are grasping at straws…and so are Republicans, just with different ideas.

    The difference is, Democrats see the enormous profits being taken by OPEC, speculators, and the oil companies as a redistribution of wealth upwards and away from everyday Americans–a wrong to be righted. It's not a hard sell, politically speaking, even if it realistically offers little more than an opportunity to vent. (Though, if you listened to those analysts speaking to Congress earlier this week, it seems that changing the rules for oil-futures speculation might have an immediate and dramatic impact on gas prices.)

    Meanwhile, Bush and McCain think the solutions are to help the oil companies tap into more Black Gold and to starve the federal highway budget with a gas-tax holiday. Feed the corporate beast, starve the government–it's the Republican way. Unfortunately, both these sets of ideas ignore the larger issues of greenhouse-gas emissions and the stupidity of remaining economically dependent on Ahmedinejad, Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud. (Not to mention the Iraqi bumblers we're propping up.)

    Analogizing Big Oil and Big Google is not appropriate. Their revenue sources are a bit different, aren't they? I don't remember paying to run my fruitless searches for “gas bargains L.A.” (I'll tell you what, though: if any advertiser wants to slap its logo on my car and pay my gas bills, I'm all ears.)

  • steve

    Marlboro is on to the root and I'll expand on it – the average American is an irresponsible gluttonous wasteful creature who feels “entitled” to a continuing expansion of more comfort / horsepower / size for ever-cheaper prices.

    I saw a CNN survey last night that asked “Who is to blame for outrageous gas prices?” Amazingly (ok, not really) only 15% of responders said “consumers”. Only 15%. Some responders probably gave their response while talking on their 17th cellphone in the last 3 years (it has more features!!) and adjusting their tri-zone air-conditioning in their 12mpg Suburban. Most responders to the survey blamed big oil, congress, or the ever-popular “anyone but me”. The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you have one. It seems that Americans aren't even close to admitting that our energy-wasteful ways are the real problem. And what's really funny is, gas is still way cheaper here than in Western Europe. So okay, they make a salary and have expenses, and we do too. They somehow live quite nice and have been for all thee years with much higher gas prices. How DO they do it!!! So maybe, just maybe the average American cry-baby needs to take a good self-examination of their personal finances and see if they really need that 12mpg SUV, or if they absolutely have to upgrade that 25 inch TV that works fine to the new 52 inch plasma (need need need, greed greed greed). I think they'll find that with a few adjustments, they can still live better than 95% of the people on Earth AND have plenty leftover for these 'outrageous' gas prices. What a bunch of fiscally irresponsible whiners we are.

    And before you all get angray at me for exposing some of the ugly truth, yes, I realize that ALL Americans aren't like this. I have sympathy for truly poor folks who are getting hit extra hard by these gas prices. But the facts are, most Americans are solidly middle class ($50,000 household income). And FAR FAR too many of that majority are fiscally irresponsible (see the $40,000 SUV in their garage). Life is full of choices and too many Americans make the wrong ones in their quest for more/bigger/better/more features. They are now reaping the consequences. And it's only begun.

  • http://avarana.blogspot.com MarlboroTestMonkey7

    A little disclosure here: I'm not american, nor I live in the US. Still, Steve points at an important issue: over consumption, naturally prompted by the market economy. As China and India bloom in the wake of globalization, the artificial needs it creates are also assumed, become customary, blinding us to other possible, better ways.
    Of course, all this talk against the tide prompts some to critizice the proponents as luddites or even, enemies of progress and democracy. Sadly, I believe there's a long way to walk before we open our eyes.

  • http://avarana.blogspot.com MarlboroTestMonkey7

    A little disclosure here: I'm not american, nor I live in the US. Still, Steve points at an important issue: over consumption, naturally prompted by the market economy. As China and India bloom in the wake of globalization, the artificial needs it creates are also assumed, become customary, blinding us to other possible, better ways.
    Of course, all this talk against the tide prompts some to critizice the proponents as luddites or even, enemies of progress and democracy. Sadly, I believe there's a long way to walk before we open our eyes.

  • http://avarana.blogspot.com MarlboroTestMonkey7

    A little disclosure here: I'm not american, nor I live in the US. Still, Steve points at an important issue: over consumption, naturally prompted by the market economy. As China and India bloom in the wake of globalization, the artificial needs it creates are also assumed, become customary, blinding us to other possible, better ways.
    Of course, all this talk against the tide prompts some to critizice the proponents as luddites or even, enemies of progress and democracy. Sadly, I believe there's a long way to walk before we open our eyes.