Back on July 8, Eliot Spitzer and William Black co-authored a brief piece at HuffPo that I meant to comment on, but then failed to because of the shift to weekday blogging. Better late than never, I supposed. Here's a key part of SEC and MMS: A Tale of Two Failures:
The SEC and the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) share a number of characteristics we can't help but notice in the wake of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, which followed the second-worst financial disaster in same....Both agencies have been failures for at least a decade.
In both instances, the regulators accepted industry assertions about the reliability of their safety mechanisms while failing to acknowledge -- much less investigate -- the darker, more complex reality. In each crisis, we had the same story of a belief in the reporting done by corporations, and in each case, we had a failure to recognize the enormous potential for fraud and the lack of incentives these corporate entities have in ascertaining and measuring potential risks to the public. The regulators continued to believe the lies fed them by CEOs even when the lies had become absurd. Both times, the agencies charged with regulating ignored the advice of their own experts, neglected to enforce rules, and engaged in an alarmingly cozy relationship with the industry they were supposed to be monitoring.
So far, the Obama administration has failed to fully grapple with the weaknesses and corruption of the regulatory agencies meant to guard the public from harm. Across the entire spectrum of regulatory agencies, there exists a dangerous atrophy of infrastructure which may lead to disasters we cannot yet imagine. Maybe now, as the oil slicks spread across the Gulf, killing wildlife and wrecking lives, our false sense of security is dissolving. We hope so, because if we don't learn from these horrific experiences, we can expect more of them. Where will the next disaster occur? At the Food and Drug Administration? At the National Transportation Safety Board? At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
There are two points I want to make: First, that this is just the tip of the iceberg of a sweeping conservative attack on regulatory and scientific integrity. Second, that Obama's demonstrable indifference gives the lie to the Third "Third Way" claim that their approach--using private entities and 'strict regulation'--can do the job as well as public ownership. The theory just might be plausible, but the practice gives the game away: They are much more partners with conservatives in re-purposing the welfare (and regulatory) state for conservative ends than they allies with true progressives in preserving the welfare state's public-serving ethos.
I expand on both points in turn on the flip.
|
(1) The problems cited by Spitzer and Black are a direct result of a conscious attack on regulatory and scientific integrity that was a key part of the Bush governing strategy. In August 2003, just as the WMD justification for the Iraq War was starting to crumble, a report was made to Henry Waxman by the Committee on Government Reform Minority staff, Politics and Science in the Bush Administration . While its focus was not on regulatory agencies such the SEC and MMS, it actually looked at the subversion of even more fundamental governmental fact-finding process. The executive summary stated, in part:
The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.
The report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:
- Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven "abstinence-only" programs appear effective;
- Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC's web site;
- Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;
- Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and
- Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.
Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women's health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park.
Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis.
(2) It's a standard claim (reiterated by Ed Kilgore in his piece "Taking Ideological Differences Seriously", which I've criticized here and here) that what distinguishes the Third "Third Way" from social democrats and other populist progressives is the preference for private methods and regulation, rather than government ownership to accomplish the same public-serving goals. But if that were so, the problems pointed to by Spitzer and Black would be like hanging curveballs just waiting for Obama to slam them out of the park.
In the real world, not so much.
Coddle and doddle is more like it. Indeed, just as it's hard to think of a more pro-Wall Street team than the one Obama has assembled, it's hard to think of a more pro-offshore drilling senator that Obama could have picked to head the Department of Interior than Ken Salazar, except, of course, Mary Landrieu. But who knows? She could still have her shot.
Regardless, if we look at the pattern of how Obama has governed so far, we see much more of a continuity with Bush, rather than a break, and a return to more public-protecting practices. The most recent example noted here on the front page of Open Left was David's diary last week, Obama Hires Fmr. Wellpoint Exec to Implement Health Care Law, focusing attention on Liz Fowler, who was Max Baucus's point person on "health reform" after leaving Wellpoint.
This sort of institutionalized coziness between government and corporations that has changed very little from Bush to Obama gives the lie to the way that Kilgore and other Third Way defenders characterize what they stand for. It may sound plausible when they explain themselves, but when you look at actual Third Way governance, there is very little difference between it and its conservative counterpart--and the SEC and MMS as exhibits "A" and "B" in this regard. Indeed, the more wacko the conservatives become, the more their Third Way counterparts follow them, so as not to seem to "far left"--meaning somewhat reminiscent of Eisenhower Republicans.
The Waxman report went on to detail several patterns of how the scientific advisory process had been corrupted--patterns that are well worth looking for throughout the entire structure of executive branch bodies:
Manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees
Scientific advisory committees assure that the government hears from the nation's top experts in a particular field before creating policy in that area. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that such committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented" and requires that advice and recommendations "not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest." The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly manipulated the advisory committee process to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:
- Appointing Unqualified Persons with Industry Ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children's brains.
- Appointing Unqualified Persons with Ideological Agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated as chair of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee's principal credential appears to be his opposition to the abortifacient RU-486. The medical journal Lancet described his scientific record as "sparse" and wrote that "[a]ny further right-wing incursions on expert panels' membership will cause a terminal decline in public trust in the advice of scientists."
- Stacking Advisory Committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. In response, ten leading scientists wrote in Science that "stacking these public committees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of dedicated scientists who are willing to participate in these efforts."
- Opposing Qualified Experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert's nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection "directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent."
So far, rather than undoing such patterns, the Obama Adminstration seems to be perpetuating them. How else to explain the skewed make-up of the Catfood Commission, for example? This is arguably the clearest example of how neo-liberals act in practice to collude with conservatives to re-purpose the welfare state for corporate and conservatives ends--and it shows the utter hollowness of their claims to share similar goals with social democrats and other progressive populists. It's one thing to claim that private entities and tough regulation can do the job as well as government-run programs. But once you see the actual performance, and see how well it serves corporate special interests, normalizing what it pretends to oppose, the Third Way/neo-liberal claim crumbles into dust.
As Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Coburn put it at the beginning of the Reagan/Obama era: "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." |
