I agree with everything that Steve Benen has to say about the political stalemate on energy policy. Everything, that is, except his assessment that politicians who oppose doing anything about carbon are taking that position because they think the public wants them to. That might be narrowly true in a state like West Virginia where the local economy is really tied to coal production. But, even there, I doubt the majority of the people want us to do nothing about climate change or our dependence on oil. I’m convinced that the politicians who oppose doing anything are doing so largely because they are paid handsomely to take that position. It’s a combination of being bought off and wanting to prevent a well-funded opponent from using Big Oil contributions against them.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
7 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Nationally, no. But only presidents run nationally.
Think tribalism and economic self-interest.
There are states and districts that are all carboned up, to be sure, but it’s not hard to think of states and congressional districts where you can construct a winning electoral coalition easiest by, or only by, attracting voters who expect their representatives to provide frequent, loud, public, hippie-punchings.
For politicians, economic self-interest consists in two parts job extortion of their constituents and one part the necessities of financing their campaigns sufficiently to deal with the opposition in a high-cost media campaign environment.
“I doubt the majority of the people want us to do nothing about climate change or our dependence on oil.”
But does the populace at large want the things that are done to require sacrifice or lifestyle changes? Absolutely not. At this point we can’t even raise the gas tax to cover road building and maintenance expenses. Attempting to put a price on carbon is certain career suicide for any politician. That leaves a trying to reduce carbon emissions with a hodge-podge of tax breaks, grants, loans, and certifications. The collection of small interventions won’t be enough.
Just like with the GoM oil spill, the ultimate culprit is us.
I’m getting to the point that I feel (against rational thought otherwise) that policy-makers are immune to public opinion and arrogantly think they can ensure their re-election through massive infusions of campaign cash. So on that, I disagree with Steve Benen.
As for the Republicans, they are fixated on breaking Obama and getting back in the game without changing their vaunted “conservative principles”. So far they have benefited from a number of unforced errors on the part of Democrats. Those with more cynical explanations will no doubt chime in here.
“I doubt the majority of the people want us to do nothing about climate change or our dependence on oil.”
Two problems with that:
The majority opinion is not of interest because it can be reliably changed by massive propaganda. The public option is a good example of how much power majority opinion has. There is no clear path between flouting public opinion and getting punished for it.
Public opinion is fuzzy and slow. Special-interest reaction is sharp and fast. Like everything else in America, the short-term rules. A poke in the eye now has more power as a threat than some vague public blowback a year or two from now.
Certainly not sayin’ direct money is not a huge motivation. But the cashflow appeal is just one instance of systemic mendacity and cowardice. The difference between our politics and Afghanistan’s is largely a question of GDP.
“The difference between our politics and Afghanistan’s is largely a question of GDP.”
If Afganistan’s politics (at least, within the largely irrelevant Karzai regime) mirrors our own that is no doubt because that regime is an american imperial client in toto.
But yes, the factional tendencies are similar. The difference is that in Afghanistan power is still largely bought through the presence of violent death. In america the age and stability of our public institutions is such that the struggle is waged through long-term institutional corruption and capture.
The open gangster-ism of factional warfare in un-developed or marginalized regions of the earth is, in our case, hidden by the overwhelming institutional power and prestige our corporate masters operate through. In other words the “indispensability” of various organs of the ruling establishment leads them to the arrogant but often temporarily valid belief that they can create their own reality. Of course, the experience of BP could be a model of the long term risks the perversion of legal regimes poses to such corporate behemoths.
Our Lousy Congress will drop THIS ball, fer sher.. A very big too bad:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/panel-recommends-1-trillion-defense-c