There's a lot to admire about the President's consensus-seeking style, however frustrating it can be to activists. But his press conference yesterday, and the management problems that led up to it, show the limits of that style in times of crisis. Hopefully the oil tragedy -- let's not call it a "spill" when it's more like a sustained explosion -- will help the Administration understand something that seems to elude them at times: You can't negotiate with disaster or compromise with danger.
The President's tendency to see and sometimes embrace both sides of an issue was in full view yesterday. One example: "You never heard me say 'drill, baby, drill'," he said about offshore drilling. True enough -- but he did say "drill," most famously a few short weeks before the BP disaster. "I don't agree with the notion that we shouldn't do (any drilling)," he said. "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."
That statement's been used against him a number of times since, and the lawyerly use of the word "generally" hasn't helped him. (We'll be discussing "progressive strategy in the Obama era" and lots of other interesting topics with a host of lefty superstars at the America's Future Now! Conference June 7-9. Check it out ...) The President alluded to this quote when he admitted he was wrong to believe "oil companies had their act together when it comes to worst-case scenarios," adding: "Now that wasn't based on just my blind acceptance of their statements. Oil drilling has been going on in the Gulf, including deepwater, for quite some time. And the record of accidents like this, we hadn't seen before."
But that's not a rational way to assess risk. It's like an alcoholic saying "I've driven drunk for years and haven't had a serious accident yet." When a brilliant person like the President says something like this it looks like his desire to consider all viewpoints has overwhelmed his ability to see things as they are. That's how this gifted man sometimes winds up saying things that are mind-bending in their denial of reality ("There is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street ... we stand or fall together.") Sometimes reality makes consensus difficult, but it must be seen as it is.
The President's message about future drilling yesterday was equivocal at best. He seemed to indicate a pro-drilling bias when he said his upcoming commission would ask the question, "How should this (drilling) proceed in a safe, effective manner?" What about asking if it should proceed, or whether it really can be done in a "safe, effective manner"? And why such a nuanced tone when addressing a shocked nation in search of leadership (53 percent of whom rate the President poorly on his handling of this crisis, according to Gallup)?
President Obama would have been better served by skipping the regulatory disquisition and focusing on the bullet-point list of actions he gave after his regulatory comments: He's going to suspend explorations, cancel lease sales, extend moratorium, and suspend action on exploratory wells. More action verbs, please, Mr. President!
Other remarks also illustrated the limits of the President's favored style -- one that might be described as "pause, cogitate, absorb, find middle ground" -- during a catastrophe. Sometimes the solutions are found by cutting through assumptions, not compromising with them. Consider Chuck Todd's question, "Why not ask BP to simply step aside on the onshore stuff?" Obama's response was a discourse on the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP's contracts with contractors, and the fact that "the Coast Guard and our military are potentially already in charge."
29 days later and they're potentially in charge?? That's a regulator's answer, a description of governmental structure and not governmental action. Another response would have been to build a command center in the Gulf in the first week, then announce that BP could either voluntarily submit itself to its management or engage in a legal battle with the US government.
His response to BP's lack of cooperation was equally unsatisfactory. He told the public what it already know -- that the oil company "wasn't fully forthcoming." But why was the Administration willing to make do with satellite data because BP wouldn't show them what their camera was picking up? Here's an option that apparently wasn't considered: Having the Department of Justice inform BP that it considered their lack of cooperation a potentially criminal act, that of concealing evidence.
The President's under a microscope now. Expect more stories like this one, entitled "Obama biggest recipient of BP cash": "BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics ...On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying -- including $15.9 million last year alone -- as it has tried to influence energy policy." Just as with financial reform, the President and other Democrats need to act forcefully to demonstrate their objectivity to the American people.
The President's strengths were on display, too. His closing comments were powerful, poetic, and beautiful. His emotional reflection on the ocean as a sacred place served both him and the nation well. But his seemingly Buddhistic tendencies toward refinement and acceptance need to be tempered at times with the forcefulness of an Old Testament prophet. His use of the word "infuriating" was a good start, and so was his description of the way oil law was written by and for the oil companies. That reflects the reality: He won't always find common ground with people whose billion-dollar interests are contrary to ours, whether they work on Wall Street or in the oil business.
Consensus-building is a gift that the President's used brilliantly on many occasions. But a gift in one situation can be a bad habit in another. The President, like all of us, has his comfort zone. But there are times when it's a comfort zone that neither the President nor the country can afford -- not with an oil crisis and a financial crisis both in urgent need of repair.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
1)When will the Justice Department start reading them their Mirandas?
2)"You don't negociate whith disaster"? How true! So, when will the President sign an Executive order ordering the closing of ALL off-shore drillings INDEFINITELY? ( Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution.)
Obama seems to be turning into "The Token President" I feared in my eponymous piece here on HP last year.
His "Nice-Black-Guy-In-Chief" strategy for winning the Presidency does not work against the Killer Capitalist and The GOGS (Gods of Greed). He'd better start channeling his inner Malcolm X soon or he's "black" history.
http://buythecover.com
The most important thing for him to do is to look the public straight in the eye and tell them he's not in the pocket of big business. Then he should show US by cracking down of BP with all four feet, then Wall Street, then the wishy-washy Blue Dog Dems. At the same time he should start a real campaign to employ the unemployed and extend benefits to those who can't find jobs immediately.
In other words he has to immediately assure the folks who voted for him that he's totally on their side and not the accomplice, pawn or patsy of The GOGS (Gods of Greed).
How's that for starters?
http://buythecover.com
the MEDIA need to stop the Fear Mongring, they didn't tell the People that most of the Beaches was open, sure they are helping in a way and they are also doing more harm then they are helping, they are hurting the tourist, which the people need, Give the Good and the Bad. The President need to Put Rachel on his Team another Bright Mind. I have never seen so many Experts, CNN Rick Sanchez, some other guy with sand, Wu on HLN, all of Bush, Former People Brown, FEMA etc. Now MSNBC Chris Matthew Bashing the Scientist and Friday he said he had brother and then he said could you just put a Sub on top of the rig to stop the leak, even I knew that would be to much pressure, even one scientist on MSNBC said he haven't seen anything like this, the question is what have man done? Thank you Mr. Prez. and Rachel.
Chris Matthews screams that Obama is not showing "leadership," and then goes on to spew what Obama should say, or didn't say, or could say, or might have said it with more passion.
Obama made his second visit to the coast yesterday - and the media kept telling us what we were going to expect, or SHOULD expect, before he even got off the plane! "Obama SHOULD hug some of the residents to show he really cares. Obama SHOULD be more passionate and not as cool. Obama HAS TO show more strength. Obama isn't tough enough, etc. etc.". For crying out loud - can't we listen and think for ourselves?
Carville, as much as he's rightfully frustrated, is flipping out and not thinking his criticisms through. We have to kick into action to protect the marshes, YES. But to say that "nothing is being done" is outrageously unfair - and the media loves the frenzy.
My god, this is an epic disaster, and the dynamics keep changing every day, and the war against the oil spill is on 2 fronts - shoreline and leak. To expect Obama to go out and give a fire and brimstone speech is not going to happen. His administrative style is what we knew when we voted for him. He's a pragmatist problem solver, not an emotionally impulsive Chris Matthews.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/05/case-of-big-oil-vs-climate-change-2.html
Why is a consultant (aka lobbyist) for the medical industry lecturing Obama on oil?
Why are we listening to him? Why does HuffPost carry his posts?
i wish he would just get madder than he11 and let it be known he's not gonna take it anymore. that would do more to inspire the citizenry of this country to begin to do what he asked us to do. i would love it if he grabbed the controls, but something tells me he has been "warned" cuz the change once he took office is completely undone.
(Obama sure has been one hell've busy guy, causing all these calamities, in such a short time )
Where Obama has come up short, is not going on TV and in Print news, and running down a laundry list of the piles of manure handed to him, when he arrived at the Oval Office, and how he has been running his legs off putting out one fire after another. ( Contrary to the spew about him playing golf some Saturday afternoons)
He needs to preach the barn burning variety, about how every agency in the government were stacked with cronies of Bush and these SAME Republicans, by ignorant people and spouses and children of Republicans and donors. (Even little Liz Cheney had a made for her job)
A good jounalist, would root out, how each agency is rotten to the core and who made it so. Who made the destruction. by allowing the corporate take over of every agency, every lawmaker, and it reached all the way up to Bush and Cheney "The Duke of Halliburton", his secret Energy meeting, BP and their pencil reviews.
I would take Obama's cool, anyday, to Bush's bluster of destruction.
He seems to spend most of his time scolding the Left for overreaching and offering flowers to the Right. And it's bad for the nation. Wall Street hates him, even as he does everything for it. Main Street is going down the tubes, and he shakes his head sadly. America's Third Coast is destroyed in slow-motion, and he seeks consensus on the issue.
Sorry, this isn't about 2004 any longer.
I don't give rat diddly if Obama is cool and Bush is a blustering idiot - if the result is the same.
I will stop blaming Bush when his whole destruction and the Republicans destruction and the BIG Industries destruction, get cleaned out.
There is not one single oil rig that Obama built. He wasn't sworn in or even elected when the Wall St. BIGs went under. Obama didn't send thousands of kids to be killed and maimed for a LIE and Iraq oil, and Cheney's contractors out the kazoo. Obama didn't let binLaden get away at Tora Bora, nor did he let the Taliban get stronger.
Obama has given Main St., 95% of the people a tax break, and we would have had a better insurance Reform, Financial Reform, if it hadn't been for Republicans and DINOs.
I don't give a flying F...k if Wall St. hates him. I don't care if it takes "4 1/2 damn years, I will blame Bush and Cheney for all their destruction. and ask some of your neighbors on Main St. if they got a tax break this year. Did you?
Words will not help. Action a month ago would have helped. Action now would be better than nothing.