Just Let Them Do It

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 16:41


Maybe I am just too tired right now, but I am suddenly of the opinion that Democrats should just completely capitulate on the offshore oil drilling question. In fact, they should also capitulate on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. While we are at it, let's institute a gas tax holiday, and release the strategic petroleum reserve.

We should cave on all of these issues, but do so with an important, public caveat. We should state, as loudly as possible, that none of this will actually lower gas prices, but that they only way to prove to the American people that it won't lower gas prices is to let Republicans have their way. Say that Republicans are good at selling things, but their ideas such don't' work.

Let's face it: the best political strategy Democrats have had over the past eight years is to make sure that there were always enough Democrats to capitulate with the governing conservative and (typically) Republican coalition, but not enough to make it a majority of the Democratic Party. This way, heinous Republican policies that benefit large corporations and cronies, but hurt most people, are passed into law, while most of the Democratic Party can claim they opposed such policies. The end result is that people stop believing Republicans, and start believing that Democrats were right all along when they said Republicans would be terrible if they were ever given control of the federal government.

Democrats are only moving toward power nationwide because Republicans were finally given sweeping trifecta control of D.C. this past decade, and quite predictably made things a lot worse for the country. It was actually Republican competence at passing their desired legislation that finally did Republicans in as a political force for the next several years.

If we can only prove them wrong but letting their idiotic ideas pass, then let this one pass immediately, and prove to people that it won't work before the election. Then, once the election is over, we can revoke all of the idiotic ideas, hopefully with comparatively less damage done than in, say, Iraq.

The consequences of Republican legislation is the most effective political tool Democrats have developed in decades. I say, not entirely sarcastically, that we go for it one more time.  
Chris Bowers :: Just Let Them Do It

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Just Let Them Do It | 29 comments
NO (4.00 / 6)

Some merit to this (4.00 / 1)
though it may be proposed cynically and somewhat satirically.

I noted elsewhere:

I keep seeing "Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less" bumper stickers popping up on cars all over the city.  

I think we, as a party, are losing on the "oil price" issue.  We may have incredibly good plans and rational responses, but the gimmicks (tax suspension, off shore drilling) are what make emotional "sense" to people and get attention.  Democrats come off as "do-nothings" and the right makes hay every time somebody on the left makes the point that "high oil prices are here to stay" or "high oil prices are good."

In the battle for "hearts and minds" we seem to keep forgetting about the hearts.  

The problem is that designing an idiotic (0.00 / 0)
policy to appeal to the hearts is much easier than figuring how to present your mindful policy with heart-appeal. Also,  we sorta stand behind our policies--at least usually.

I'd love to see Obama say something like, 'We're going to start regulating oil companies, they're gouging us, and two years into my administration no American will pay more than $2/gallon. You want $2 gas? Vote Obama.'

Everyone hates Big Oil. Blaming them had a lot of heart appeal. Say things like, "I'm gonna sit Big Oil down and tell them, 'Stop the bullshit'. And if they don't listen, I'll nationalize their asses.'

Well, maybe not that last bit. But that's the approach.  

[ Parent ]
I agree about your approach - but NOT the policy! (4.00 / 2)
The approach you describe, of thinking harder about framing our ideas to capture hearts as well as minds, is important.

But I disagree deeply about the policy solution you propose.  Obama should stay far away from promising $2.00/gallon oil - and in no small part because it locks him into trouble with circumstances that are simply beyond his control.  

High oil prices aren't even really Bush's fault!  Or not fully his fault, at least.  BushCo certainly hasn't helped, with Katrina-damaged refining capacity, oil companies going unregulated, and a complete abdication of responsibility for developing clean and renewable energy - but the bottom line is, oil prices would have gone up, by now, anyway, as a function of Peak Oil and the laws of supply and demand.  Also, oil prices will go up further, regardless.  

And finally, oil prices SHOULD go up - because current and past prices do not reflect the true costs (both human and environmental) of oil extraction, refinement, transport, protection, remediation of pollution, climate change, and everything else.  Even today, prices are artificially low thanks to a perverse and arcane set of subsidies for Big Oil and Big Auto (against renewables and public transit, respectively).  

There is no future in cheap oil or gas.  No President should promise low prices - both because his or her limited control can mean it's bad politics, and because maintaining low prices represents fundamentally unsound policy.  

[ Parent ]
The damage to the environment and the economy (4.00 / 1)
would outweigh any possible political gain. Besides, the Republicans are masters at rewriting history. They are the ones, after all, who elevated a mediocre, race-baiting President who gave weapons to an enemy of the US in exchange for political gain to the status of God on Earth.

Let the Republicans bitch and moan about this BS. We're going to win the election regardless of whether we win this particular issue. And then we can show the people that our solutions work, not just that their solutions don't work.

Unforunate. (4.00 / 4)
The problem is that many liberal policies are long-term in scope while politics is a short-term business.  So if by refusing to drill in the ANWR now we avert an even worse climate catastrophe in 50 years, we won't be rewarded politically.  If we refuse to incur massive debt now to avoid an economic downturn when we have to pay back our debt in a few decades, that won't benefit us politically, either.  On the other hand, quick fixes that yield a temporary boost but result in a long-term decline are very politically viable and seem to be mostly in the conservative domain.
One Party (1.33 / 3)
One party, two factions...

Faction 1, Republicans, represent those who make $200,000 plus a year OR those that think they make $200,000 a year.  Hate and war criminals love this faction.  So do rednecks, military enthusiasts, and unemployed security guards.

Faction 2, Democrats, represent everyone, but they pander to "po folks".  Rich and poor, young and old, pure and tainted, all love being called "Democrat" because it makes them feel they are fighting the good fight.  

BOTH factions, empower the military industrial complex and our Imperial foreign policy.  Both support the racist state of Israel and it's genocidal tendencies.  

I am a progressive that see the Democratic party, as it is today, as much as an enemy as the Republican Party.  

I would jail Nancy Pelosi before Dick Cheney.

Thrilling manifesto . . . of stupidity. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Apparently you want to spite your face (4.00 / 4)
but ask yourself this: if you cut off your nose will you still look like a Bee Gee?

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Too late. (0.00 / 0)
The point has been made. Now Dems control Congress. What's the rallying cry? Bush destroyed out country and we didn't stop him -- yay Dems?
A Republican told me (4.00 / 7)
That if he runs me over with his car, it won't break my legs.

But I say it will break my legs--and I'll let him run me over to prove it!

Let's Call Their Bluff (4.00 / 1)
"We whole-heartedly agree that providing immediate relief to Americans at the pump cannot be a political issue and that is why we support a nationalized off shore drilling compromise. It is the American people who need relief and we do not agree that American oil companies have an inherient right to profit from American's economic distress. Therefore we will only support drilling ventures that are not for profit and will be overseen in a fashion similar to that of the TVA. We anticipate a our friend across the aisle will join us on this effort."
Yeah, because the TVA was SUCH an environmental success story. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Compared to what the private energy sector has done? (0.00 / 0)
Absol-frickin-lutely.

And at least it has to follow NEPA and ESA whenever it does a project, unlike a company using private funds and private lands.  

[ Parent ]
The real danger (4.00 / 1)
Is that because of other factors gas prices drop just enough that GOPers could claim credit. Dangerous to assume nothing like that could happen.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
Opposing Drilling Can Work For Obama (4.00 / 5)
Senator Obama needs to hammer Senator McCain for the canard that this ploy is.  He needs to hit offshore drilling with the gas tax holiday hammer he used against Senator Clinton.  

Speaker Pelosi has it right, drill the leases you already have.  This is just another land grab, a parting gift for big oil from George and Dick.

The Democratic talking point on drilling that I've heard today is a good one, you don't give an addict all the drugs they want so they will quit.  

A flip on this issue would be a major mistake.

And, Chris please respond that you are just being flip.

Unconscionable costs, unwieldy timeline, non-existent data to back it up. (4.00 / 2)
I bet Natasha would have something more articulate to say on this, but Chris - this is a horrifying way to sell out long-term environmental and human rights interests in order to placate the right, using a strategy (cave and parrot conservative talking points) that you yourself have done so much to discredit!

It reminds me of a recent Jerome Armstrong post full of similar off-the-deep-end anti-environmental foolishness, along the lines of supporting a gas tax holiday to "take it off the table as a campaign issue," or some such nonsense.

There is no data to back up the claim that this idea (Democrats' adopting rightwing policies like ANWR drilling and gas tax holidays in order to later discredit these policies when they "fail" - in several YEARS) would work.  Your arguments are usually strongly data-based, so this struck me as pretty uncharacteristic.  Maybe you're jut feeling "too tired right now," as you said, and maybe it's just a function of the ease of blog-posting before your ideas on this have fully settled, but I hope you'll reconsider your take on this one.

If you are re-thinking it, then I challenge you to answer these questions:

1) What are the short- and long-term environmental and human costs of drilling and other perverse oil-incentivizing policies?

2) How long will it take for these policies to clearly "fail", and how would the Democrats combat a right-wing noise machine good at muddying the clearest waters, when this territory is already so murky?

3) And most importantly, for godsakes, what data backs up the notion that "just letting them do it" would help the American public realize that the Republicans are a party of nutjobs and crazy hacks?

My answers are that the costs are unconscionable, the timeline lengthy, and the data nonexistent.  None of that mentions that it's a fundamentally UNNECESSARY route for the (majority) Dems to take.

Man (0.00 / 0)
Chris with jetlag is awesome.

Take trips more often!

Let's make a deal (4.00 / 4)
They get drilling.  We get eleventy trillion dollars for infrastructure and mass transit.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
I say this (0.00 / 0)
ANWR will be drilled. The continental shelf will be drilled. The political and economic pressure to do this will only mount as time goes by. We might as well try to get something in exchange.

Chris' suggestion is one way to go: trade ANWR/offshore drilling for, essentially, the rather subtle political accomplishment of deflating conservative ideology. But, I don't know - does their ideology still need deflating? I thought Katrina and Iraq took care of that. All that's left are the Club for Growth/Limbaughian true believers over on that side, and facts won't sway them anyway.

On the other hand, we could also try to exchange drilling for higher mileage standards, investment in renewables, etc. Which would allow conservatives to claim some legitimacy for their ideas, but would still defuse the "Drill Here, Now" argument, and would have the added virtue of being somewhat useful

You can "say" whatever you want - (4.00 / 4)
I call bullsh*t.  

The inevitability frame is a classic tool of the Right.  There is nothing inevitable about this drilling taking place, and by parroting their arguments, you aid and abet their policies.  

Land protection and environmental conservation constitute the fundamental moral challenge of our era, and we have unadmirably failed so far to rise to this challenge.  This ain't just about global warming, and it NEVER was - politicians and activists who fail to understand this are not helping the progressive cause.

Climate change is a symptom - the world's biggest, nastiest "headache" in history - but it is not a root cause, a disease in and of itself.  If we just treat the symptom with aspirin in the form of greenhouse-gas-reducing large-scale renewable investment, sequestration of carbon, monoculture forest-planting, or whatever trash is being tossed around in the mushy middle of American political discourse - then our civilization will decline.  

We can't afford to just treat the symptom, climate change - we must address a host of more fundamental diseases, including peak oil, human global population overshoot, and especially, especially the loss of habitat and biodiversity, worldwide.  

Sustainability should be foundational to the entire progressive platform - it is an umbrella of values that underpin health care for all, an end to war, worker's rights, minority justice, and everything we're fighting for - but respect for land is at its very heart.  

Until committed progressives (including Chachy and Chris!) understand this, how can we begin to hope that the rest of America will?  

[ Parent ]
Good response (4.00 / 1)
I am mad sympathetic to what you say here. In fact, I just about agree with it. But I can't get past what I said in the first paragraph above. I think a reasonably enlightened exchange of more drilling for greater energy efficiency would not only be a desirable end in itself, but would ease the transition to a sustainable future. And bear in mind, a transition away from oil and gas is inevitable; the question is just what we replace the current energy regime with: a mix of reduced demand and clean alternatives, or an ad hoc mix of coal and wood-burning that would worsen global warming. Increasing efficiency and medium-term oil production (within the context of generally declining production (i.e., peak oil)) seems like the most reasonable path to the more desirable scenario.

But, look, your fundamental moral argument is absolutely right. I totally endorse it - we just have a different opinion on tactics.

[ Parent ]
Bad idea (4.00 / 1)
People may want those things, but that does not mean that they want democrats to give them.

Besides releasing the reserve could have a genuine short term effect.

Don't confuse "Yes I would like the government to give me 600 dollars" with "I want to vote for the politician that does that for everyone".

Democrats should argue for a tax on gas and tax relief for businesses that encourage closer commutes and working from home.  People would love it if the government gave an incentive for businesses to have partial telecommuting.

The point being?  Democrats need an alternative narrative.  Not giving in.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Right, Chris. You <i>were</i> too tired when you wrote this. (4.00 / 1)
Re-think it after you've had some rest.  I bet you change your mind.
Is this the best you can offer (0.00 / 0)
after a long weekend at Netroots Nation?  Just what the hell did you folks actually talk about?  Sheesh.  And your need to point out that this is "not entirely sarcastic" prevents me from giving you any props for well-executed irony.  
Re Netroots Nation (0.00 / 0)
Exactly!  Did you not attend this panel?

At the Netroots Nation conference this past week, Al Gore made a surprise visit and struck out hard against Republican "hair of the dog" solutions to the connected energy and global warming crises.

"The idea that we're going to [offshore] drill our way out of this is just so absurd as to not warrant consideration... if you're in a hole, stop digging!" He says to cheers.

And later: "Proposing to get a slight increase in oil by drilling for fuels to be sold to China ten to fifteen years from now as a solution to our rising gas prices makes about as much sense as responding to an attack from Afghanistan by invading some other country."


[ Parent ]
Half-hearted irony due to PCS (post-convention syndrome) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
i disagree with the policy conclusions you draw (4.00 / 1)
but i think this is actually the more important part of your analysis and right on:

Let's face it: the best political strategy Democrats have had over the past eight years is to make sure that there were always enough Democrats to capitulate with the governing conservative and (typically) Republican coalition, but not enough to make it a majority of the Democratic Party. This way, heinous Republican policies that benefit large corporations and cronies, but hurt most people, are passed into law, while most of the Democratic Party can claim they opposed such policies. The end result is that people stop believing Republicans, and start believing that Democrats were right all along when they said Republicans would be terrible if they were ever given control of the federal government.

Democrats are only moving toward power nationwide because Republicans were finally given sweeping trifecta control of D.C. this past decade, and quite predictably made things a lot worse for the country. It was actually Republican competence at passing their desired legislation that finally did Republicans in as a political force for the next several years.

This is part of a longer-term process and imo includes a lot of what Clinton did (like the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the welfare bill, easy credit, caving in on "big government" criticism, etc.).  That's why I think looking at alternatives to electoral politics to solve problems (rather than to mitigate bad policies that are going to be passed anyway) was and, depending on the issue, remains very important.

Just Let Them Do It | 29 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox