|
I'm intrigued by the recent appearance of progressive Democrats in states like Alaska, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Texas. Texas Senate candidate Rick Noriega's appearance on Firedoglake illustrates that this guy is progressive and forward-looking, but not a coastal liberal. That's true with Sherrod Brown as well, who recently told off the DLC, and to a lesser extent, Jon Tester and Jim Webb. What unifies these states is that they all contain extractive industries, either coal or oil. They are like America's OPEC, with the inherent corruption that such resource intensive regions imply, so it is not an accident that Democrats tend to be elected in these states on anti-corruption platforms like that which sunk Conrad Burns in Montana.
These states all have a direct interest in the current fossil fuel and resource extraction economy, with all the subsidies that implies. They are the natural home of the Blue Dogs and people like Dick Gephardt Democrats. Southern extractive states rely much more on military and aerospace expenditures and as such have become more right-wing in recent years, whereas Western states have ranching and farming and a stronger legacy of environmentalism and libertarianism.
Coal cuts through extractive states, and is enormously powerful. This Grist interview with Senator Clinton on coal should give you a sense of how much of a role it plays.
What role will coal play in your plan?
I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove one way or another.
The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal -- of which we have a great and abundant supply in America -- is not going away.
Freshmen Democrats Charlie Wilson, Zack Space, and Chris Carney are all proposing 'clean coal' expansions. Now, clean coal as a technology doesn't exist, but these people are pushing it for political reasons. That's a very bad thing for a progressive coalition.
As we think through how to get progressive Democrats elected in extractive industry states, we need to figure out how to elect people who will be able to move their states off of the fossil fuel energy basis. I asked Rick Noriega about this, and here's what he said.
Second, you are right. Our state depends a lot on the energy industry to drive our economy. As long as we have to burn things to produce things in Texas, we've got to push clean burning natural gas. We've got to push new technologies and innovations. Texas has to lead the way in this arena or else we will become the next rust belt.
There are models here. Lots of people in these states don't benefit from the fossil fuel economy, and if they can be registered and turned out that's enough. These states also have high union densities, though often in extractive industries. In Texas, it's Latinos, and in Montana, it was young people that put Tester over the top. The temptation is, as it was in Indiana where we picked up three Blue Dogs, to play to the conservative corporate instincts that eventually brings in coal money and shreds our Constitution.
I'm curious if you have any thoughts or comments on the politics of extractive industrial regions. I'm just starting to learn about this area.
|
STATE BLOGS
