More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

For well over a year now I've been wondering why President Barack Obama, (who is a talented communicator and a student of history), failed to recognize Franklin Delano Roosevelt's example of the necessity of speaking directly to the American people. Tonight, at long last, Obama gave his first "fireside chat." He should have done so long ago to clarify his efforts to reform the financial sector, as well as to explain his stimulus package and health care initiatives. (A weekly Youtube talk is no substitute for a primetime Oval Office address.) His passivity allowed his political opponents, including well-heeled Wall Street and health insurance interests, to define the narrative on their terms. It was a political blunder.

Obama's talk tonight was dominated by a technocratic laundry list of actions he plans to take. Forcing British Petroleum to put some cash aside for compensating the victims of the spill is an important step but how exactly is the U.S. government going to take control of these funds? National "commissions" are slow and ineffective and usually offer only bland "bipartisan" recommendations, (like the 9-11 Commission). What is his commission going to accomplish? The President clearly still has confidence in Interior Secretary Ken Salazar even though he botched overseeing the Minerals Management Service. What makes him think this confidence is warranted? How is Obama going to confront the lobbyists and campaign money coming from the oil industry to buy off the Congress and block his proposed reforms?

Few people care about how Obama is going to reorganize bureaucratic boxes at the Interior Department or sell his plan for alternative energy to an obstructionist Senate, (certain to grow more obstructionist after the midterms). We've heard it all before. People want the Obama Administration to take decisive, forceful action against British Petroleum. Obama should have made it clear tonight that the coddling of BP is over. We all know the Senate is going to water down any energy policy that claws back oil corporations' profits. Promises about ending our dependency on fossil fuels can only ring hollow after hearing them for thirty years. Obama's energy policy will probably go the same middle-of-the-road route as his financial and health care policies. Tragically, we were not even given the opportunity to see how popular single payer would have been, or breaking up the big banks, or capping greenhouse gas emissions. The times call for bold action but we're getting industry-friendly half measures.

BP's criminal negligence -- with a big assist from corrupt federal "regulators" -- is killing the Gulf of Mexico. It's not only wiping out the habitats of thousands of fish and bird species, but it is also destroying the livelihoods of millions of people who depend on a relatively clean environment in the water and along the coastline. BP's handling of the oil spill disaster is no different than what we would expect from Enron or Goldman Sachs. Why on earth would Obama continue to trust this sociopathic corporate enterprise to "Do the right thing?" All BP cares about is limiting its liability; hence the lies and the gag orders; the media blackouts and the low-balling the number of barrels released; the bogus contracts and the ordering of workers not to wear respirators; the reckless use of carcinogenic dispersants; the initial refusal to drill two relief wells; the lackadaisical deploying of vessels to suck up the oil; the hiring of Dick Cheney's former publicist as a spokesperson, and so on, and on, and on. For BP's executives it's all about the years (or decades) of litigation ahead of them.

It's not enough to send the Attorney General down to the Gulf to try to shift the "optics" to appear like something "tough" is going to happen. It's not enough to say that you're "frustrated" with the response (or "angry") and will redouble your efforts to make it right. Reorganizing the Minerals Management Service is a necessary step but what's the plan to prevent the oil industry from "capturing" the new bureaucracies? "Blue ribbon" commissions have become nothing but sad jokes. The evidence so far that Representatives Edward Markey and Henry Waxman are unearthing suggests that BP deserves a corporate death sentence. Enron's former CEO Jeffrey Skilling is serving a 24-year prison term, but compared to BP's executives his crimes seem about equal to jaywalking.

Historians have long pointed to the effectiveness of FDR's fireside chats in educating the public and galvanizing support for his New Deal reforms. Although he used them sparingly (only thirty throughout his twelve years in office) when he reached out to the American people directly he expressed not only reassurance and optimism but also a steely resolve to take on the moneyed interests, i.e. giant corporations. When a president speaks directly to the American people in the intimate setting of the Oval Office it should give people the sense that their leader understands the gravity of the problems we face and can point the way out of the abyss. Jimmy Carter showed, however, that such intimacy could be a double-edged sword. His attempt to "chat" with the American people about the energy crisis in July 1979 was widely interpreted as offering neither reassurance nor optimism. One of the results was thirty years of oil industry control of America's energy policy.

Tonight President Obama explained how his administration is going to respond to the most devastating human-made ecological catastrophe in the nation's history. But he apparently doesn't recognize how overwhelmingly popular it would be right now with the American people if he came out swinging against the malefactors of great corporate wealth like BP (or Goldman Sachs). His tendency is to pull his punches in an attempt to placate all sides, looking weak and reinforcing the Democrats' negative stereotypes. Rhetoric aside, it will be Obama's concrete actions in dealing firmly with BP that will determine whether tonight's speech will go down in history as being akin to Franklin Roosevelt (elected four times) or more like Jimmy Carter (a one term failure).

 
 
 

Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A

 
 
  • Comments
  • 217
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx
04:39 PM on 06/16/2010
When FDR spoke, people listened because he was compelling. Obama's speech was as compelling as watching a PBS pledge-break.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetestTaboo
10:08 PM on 06/16/2010
Yeah but he made BP pony up $20B and an apology to the "small" people. So which is better, compelling to you or compelling to BP. I think compelling to BP wins hands down.

But thanks for playing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:25 PM on 06/16/2010
FDR lived in a different america with much less information available and through which what he was doing was unique. He was able to speak directly to people through theonly mass medium they had. Today, most people were watching/listening to something else. and the words are endlessly dissected by the talking heads.and we've had 70 yrs of politicians talking directly to us to get used to it.

In short, the President, any president, doesn't have command of the stage, the message, the media, our respect, or our attention anymore. and we now want instant fixes.
03:00 PM on 06/16/2010
Jimmy Carter - without question. And has far as being an historian is concerned, he couldn't even name his favorite White Sox player when asked. Never let a good crisis go to waste - here comes cap and tax!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
javajava
Pastafarian Liberal Progressive Socialist Hippie
02:16 PM on 06/16/2010
How many more ways can the President say BP is responsible and BP will pay for it? Threaten executions? There are ongoing investingations by Justice and the Senate and I would expect more regulation of offshore drilling will soon follow. I think the focus ought to be on cleaning up the mess and from preventing it from happening again. Quit the posturing.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:23 PM on 06/16/2010
The comments have been very thoughtful, thank you. I just wanted Obama to take a stronger stand against BP -- the FDR parallel stops there, at least FDR could channel the nation's anger toward giant corporations and Wall Street -- there's political gold out there but Obama isn't picking it up.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Coinyer101
King of Doobiestan
12:42 PM on 06/16/2010
I take exception to yer implications about the last best President we've, had. If more folks had taken President Jimmy Carter seriously, we wouldn't have this disaster right now....,

FDR got 'bought' by big oil and coal raise taxes on alcohol-based fuels, so they couldn't compete with fossil fuels.

Otherwise, we would have been 'growing' our fuel 80 years ago, and we wouldn't be in this environmental and foreign energy-dependence crises we're in right now.

DuPont and big oil, the coal and timber industries all lobbied against Henry Ford's idea to 'grow' our fuel and build our cars out of better materials. They managed to run a campaign of lies claiming that hemp was a drug, when it isn't.

If folks had listened to Ford, we would be growing and supplying the world with clean energy decades ago....,and we wouldn't be looking for jobs right now....,

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm

Don't tell me it's not 'viable', either...., It's been 'viable' for longer than most of us been alive...,
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Coinyer101
King of Doobiestan
12:41 PM on 06/16/2010
I take exception to yer implications about the last best President we've, had. If more folks had taken President Jimmy Carter seriously, we wouldn't have this disaster right now....,

FDR got 'bought' by big oil and coal raise taxes on alcohol-based fuels, so they couldn't compete with fossil fuels.

Otherwise, we would have been 'growing' our fuel 80 years ago, and we wouldn't be in this environmental and foreign energy-dependence crises we're in right now.

DuPont and big oil, the coal and timber industries all lobbied against Henry Ford's idea to 'grow' our fuel and build our cars out of better materials. They managed to run a campaign of lies claiming that hemp was a drug, when it isn't.

If folks had listened to Ford, we would be growing and supplying the world with clean energy decades ago....,and we wouldn't be looking for jobs right now....,

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm

Don't tell me it's not 'viable', either...., It's been 'viable' for longer than most of us been alive...,
12:29 PM on 06/16/2010
I disagree with much of this article. First I'd ask the professor, how silly would it be for the president or anyone to come out with a detailed plan of action in a subject they are not expert at? So in the first few weeks, when the facts we're slow coming in and of questionable validity, there was no way the president could have got in front of the evolving crisis anymore than he did, he would have looked foolish as new information came in.So all these pundits are saying the president should have done this or he should have done that, but these suggestions are not wise. The public should have been assured that the president was working with the experts (some obviously with BP) to get an assessment, stop the leak short and long term. But no, the media and the pundits are all backseat drivers telling us where we should have went - when we were driving in the dark.
Simply put, the president is not to blame for the difficulty of the problem nor the impatience of the public.We should hold and judge him through the efforts he's taken to fix the problem. All the media want is the facade and the "take charge" attitude, .. lotta good that will do ya ... driving blind!!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:11 PM on 06/16/2010
I think you're probably right, Obama and Rahm don't want to "own" this crisis, it's probably smarter politics to leave it as BP's problem -- that might work in Washington, and even nationally, but it's kind of cynical
photo
panamarine
My opinion is only an opinion
03:00 PM on 06/16/2010
Joseph P: Where did you get that from? O and Rahm don't want to "own" this crisis?
They are into it with both feet...running towards the sound of "gun-fire". You don't see that? They are all over BP's case now. BP's running scared. Not evident to you? Or, you just making things up conveniently for your own private consumption.
06:46 PM on 06/16/2010
Joseph, 2 things. The fact that it is smarter politics is incidental, it is wise in itself foremost! Like I said, how silly would it have been to "own" the crisis, still evolving and uncertain? What could he have said? BP didn't have the answers early on and they're the experts so our administration wouldn't have been able to come forward with any details which would have resulted in a hollow ownership don't you agree? Secondly, I don't understand your point about being cynical. When this whole situation is studied in retrospect, I think you'll find the presidents response as thoughtful and extensive, optics notwithstanding. Early on, he assembled experts from various related fields, dealt with MMS, made trips to the area, put Thad Allen in charge and put the pressure on BP for results and compensation. Now certainly you can find suboptimal decisions in hindsight as you can with any situation, but remember the context, the president is concurrently dealing with Israel, Iran sanctions, financial regulations, immigration and a deep recession trying to come up for air - ALL WITH REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION AND MEDIA INSTIGATION. I'm not saying give him a break, just consider the larger picture before you judge 1 specific aspect. The president did not crack under the health care battle, he came back strong. He's not cracking now, he just got a $20,000,000,000 commitment from BP whereas the republicans wouldn't budge on raising their liability from $75,000,000. Our president is wise - his only fault.
photo
panamarine
My opinion is only an opinion
02:50 PM on 06/16/2010
Music2mYears: taking a cue from your post I offer the following scenario:
OBAMA: In the driver's seat
AMERICAN PUBLIC: In the backseat.
POW!
Everybody: "What Happened?
OBAMA: Flat tire.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Can you fix it?
OBAMA: I can drive the car to the next gas station up the road, five miles and get it fixed.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: (After 1 mile) Are we there yet?
OBAMA: Soon, 4 more miles.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Can you drive this thing any faster, we need to go potty, wah, wah
OBAMA: Should I stop, and one of you get out and fix the tire? Or can you just Shut up until we get to the Gas Station.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Why are you mad at us? Get mad at the blown tire.
OBAMA: If I get mad at the tire, it's not going to get fixed that way. If the mechanic can't fix it when we get there,then I will get mad at him.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: And then what?
OBAMA: One of you will have to fix it.
AMERICAN PUBLIC: What if we can't?
OBAMA: See, I knew it... So I will open the trunk, and take out the spare tire and fix it myself. See, that's why I didn't get mad, because I knew I had a spare tire in the trunk. Happy now? Ok, back in the car, let's go.
End of story.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carhac66
12:10 PM on 06/16/2010
Obama is trying an "end-run" around the Courts & Congress by getting BP to put the $$$ in an account BP does not have access to. Neither President or Congress have control over BP because the courts will back BP! SCOTUS now run the US. GET USE TO IT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carhac66
12:07 PM on 06/16/2010
Obama knows that the courts will give BP anything it wants. Just like Exxon Valdes spill. We picked up the tab on that one thanks to the courts. LOL

Neither President or Congress will be able to touch BP! SCOTUS has already declared its servitude to Corporations like BP. there is nothing the Congress, President or we the Citizens can do about it.
LOL -- we should all get use to the way things really are.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:12 PM on 06/16/2010
you're probably right, the Supreme Court will rule in BP's favor -- I liked Robert Reich's "receivership" idea
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carhac66
05:06 PM on 06/16/2010
I like the "receivership" idea also, but it will eventually end up in court. this is what scares me about the idea. It may also encourage BP to get their lawyers into court and stop any actions to try to solve the problem. people are complaining without any idea of how to solve the problem.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
11:22 AM on 06/16/2010
he is President Barack Hussein Obama.....a pragmatic...practical man who (I beleive) is trying to right a country run adrift by right-wing nonsense..........BUT....I don't think that it will work.......People are too easily led by the media and her pundits.and the 24/7 news cycle..........has anyone seen a news show about what the president has accomplished the last 17 months???...........nope.......and you won't either.....if the Republicans take over the house or senate in November then America is lost
09:06 PM on 06/16/2010
Good points. However, I don't share your pessimism, I mean look over the primaries thus far completed. The Dems did better that the pundits expected and some of them even pointed this out. I think this will continue. Only the easily duped are swayed. I'm optimistic that American intelligence will prevail and Obama's record will speak for itself when we go to the polls. The Tea Party is crippling the Republican chances of taking over the Senate and they definitely will not get the House. All in all, in an election where the party in power loses seats, I think we'll do alright. Your right that Obama's accomplishments should be talked about more but the media is falling prey to ratings and they get higher ratings when the easily duped tune in.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
10:29 PM on 06/16/2010
I appreciate your optimism :)
11:08 AM on 06/16/2010
Would have been nice for Barry to have an actual plan, instead of a plan to plan a plan.
11:32 AM on 06/16/2010
Dotto-heads will critize Obama...no matter what he does, and no matter what he says...
12:27 PM on 06/16/2010
And the kool-aid drinkers will defend him no matter how inept he is.
photo
panamarine
My opinion is only an opinion
11:41 AM on 06/16/2010
Ktruth: When you use ---> BARRY = Term of endearment? Like Bubba and Dubya's? Or you being snarky?
Better to have a plan than no plan at all. Is that Ok?
10:43 AM on 06/16/2010
I don't think he's really channeling FDR, but it would be great if he did. A president should use the media as a tool to get closer to the public and really work to share their aspirations. There's a great analysis from Roosevelt Historian David Woolner up today: http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/16/obama-v-fdr-using-the-media-to-restore-public-trust-12589/
Paulo1
Thanks for reading, (even if you disagree)
10:26 AM on 06/16/2010
"President Barack Obama, (who is a talented communicator and a student of history)"

Talented Communicator absolutely, the man gives great speech.

Historian. absolutely NOT, he is a Constitutional law professor and has as much relation to a historian as a goat does! Historians learn a bit from history, or at least try, Obama can't even learn to avoid the power abuses of the guy he replaced. As a "student of history" he gets a D- at best.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
01:14 PM on 06/16/2010
he seems to know a lot about Lincoln and MLK/JFK
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:25 PM on 06/16/2010
How so? Other than what we all know?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Caroli
Give peace a chance
09:42 AM on 06/16/2010
Our president, our congress, and all their minions are incapable of overcoming the corporate forces they, and previous administrations, have unleashed upon this country. Like termites, lobbyists have hollowed out the foundation and infrastructure of our nation, to the point where we are nearly beyond salvation without a significant change in in our laws and regulations which the industries obviously will not permit. Sadly, I do believe it will take a violent revolution to wrestle control back from the oligarchs.