05-30-2010, 07:07 PM
FOR Barack Obamaâs knee-jerk foes, of course it was his Katrina. But for the rest of us, thereâs the nagging fear that the largest oil spill in our history could yet prove worse if it drags on much longer. It might not only wreck the ecology of a region but capsize the principal mission of the Obama presidency
Before we look at why, it would be helpful to briefly revisit that increasingly airbrushed late summer of 2005. Whatever Obamaâs failings, he is infinitely more competent at coping with catastrophe than his predecessor. President Bushâs top disaster managers â the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, as well as the notorious âBrownieâ â professed ignorance of New Orleansâs humanitarian crisis a full day after the nation had started watching it live in real time on television. When Bush finally appeared, he shunned the city entirely and instead made a jocular show of vowing to rebuild the coastal home of his partyâs former Senate leader, Trent Lott. He never did take charge.
The Obama administration has been engaged with the oil spill from the start â however haltingly and inarticulately at times. It was way too trusting of BP but was never AWOL. For all the second-guessing, itâs still not clear what else the president might have done to make a definitive, as opposed to cosmetic, difference in plugging the hole: yell louder at BP, send in troops and tankers, or, as James Carville would have it, assume the role of Big Daddy? The spill is not a Tennessee Williams play, its setting notwithstanding, and itâs hard to see what more drama would add, particularly since No Drama Obamaâs considerable talents do not include credible play-acting.
But life isnât fair, and this president is in a far tougher spot in 2010 than his predecessor was in 2005.
When Katrina hit, Bush was in his second term and his bumbling was not a shock to a country that had witnessed two-plus years of his grievous mismanagement of the Iraq war. His laissez-faire response to the hurricane was also consistent with his political DNA as a small-government conservative in thrall to big business. His administrationâs posture toward the gulf region had been telegraphed at its inception, when **** Cheney convened oil and gas cronies, including Enronâs Ken Lay, to set environmental and energy policy. The Interior Department devolved into a cesspool of corruption, even by its historically low standards, turning the Bush-Cheney antigovernment animus into a self-fulfilling prophecy and bequeathing Obama a Minerals Management Service as broken as the Bush-Cheney FEMA exposed by Katrina.
Obama was elected as a progressive antidote to this discredited brand of governance. Of all the presidentâs stated goals, none may be more sweeping than his desire to prove that government is not always a hapless and intrusive bureaucratic assault on taxpayersâ patience and pocketbooks, but a potential force for good.
He returned to this theme with particular eloquence in his University of Michigan commencement speech 10 days after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. He reminded his audience that under both parties the federal government helped build public high schools, the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway system, engineered the New Deal and Medicare â and imposed safety and environmental standards on the oil industry. Quoting Lincoln, Obama said that âthe role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.â
We expect him to deliver on this core conviction. But the impact on âthe peopleâ of his signature governmental project so far, health care reform, remains provisional and abstract. Like it or not, a pipe gushing poison into an ocean is a visceral crisis demanding visible, immediate action.
Obamaâs news conference on Thursday â explaining in detail the governmentâs response, its mistakes and its precise relationship to BP â was at least three weeks overdue. It was also his first full news conference in 10 months. Obamaâs recurrent tardiness in defining exactly what he wants done on a given issue â a lapse also evident in the protracted rollout of the White Houseâs specific health care priorities â remains baffling, as does his recent avoidance of news conferences. Such diffidence does not convey a J.F.K.-redux in charge of a neo-New Frontier activist government.
Long before Obama took office, the public was plenty skeptical that government could do anything right. Eight years of epic Bush ineptitude and waste only added to Washingtonâs odor. Now Obama is stuck between a rock and a Tea Party. His credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf. And this in an election year when the very idea of a viable federal government is under angrier assault than at any time since the Gingrich revolution and militia mobilization of 1994-5 and arguably since the birth of the modern conservative movement in the 1960s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30rich.html
Before we look at why, it would be helpful to briefly revisit that increasingly airbrushed late summer of 2005. Whatever Obamaâs failings, he is infinitely more competent at coping with catastrophe than his predecessor. President Bushâs top disaster managers â the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, as well as the notorious âBrownieâ â professed ignorance of New Orleansâs humanitarian crisis a full day after the nation had started watching it live in real time on television. When Bush finally appeared, he shunned the city entirely and instead made a jocular show of vowing to rebuild the coastal home of his partyâs former Senate leader, Trent Lott. He never did take charge.
The Obama administration has been engaged with the oil spill from the start â however haltingly and inarticulately at times. It was way too trusting of BP but was never AWOL. For all the second-guessing, itâs still not clear what else the president might have done to make a definitive, as opposed to cosmetic, difference in plugging the hole: yell louder at BP, send in troops and tankers, or, as James Carville would have it, assume the role of Big Daddy? The spill is not a Tennessee Williams play, its setting notwithstanding, and itâs hard to see what more drama would add, particularly since No Drama Obamaâs considerable talents do not include credible play-acting.
But life isnât fair, and this president is in a far tougher spot in 2010 than his predecessor was in 2005.
When Katrina hit, Bush was in his second term and his bumbling was not a shock to a country that had witnessed two-plus years of his grievous mismanagement of the Iraq war. His laissez-faire response to the hurricane was also consistent with his political DNA as a small-government conservative in thrall to big business. His administrationâs posture toward the gulf region had been telegraphed at its inception, when **** Cheney convened oil and gas cronies, including Enronâs Ken Lay, to set environmental and energy policy. The Interior Department devolved into a cesspool of corruption, even by its historically low standards, turning the Bush-Cheney antigovernment animus into a self-fulfilling prophecy and bequeathing Obama a Minerals Management Service as broken as the Bush-Cheney FEMA exposed by Katrina.
Obama was elected as a progressive antidote to this discredited brand of governance. Of all the presidentâs stated goals, none may be more sweeping than his desire to prove that government is not always a hapless and intrusive bureaucratic assault on taxpayersâ patience and pocketbooks, but a potential force for good.
He returned to this theme with particular eloquence in his University of Michigan commencement speech 10 days after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. He reminded his audience that under both parties the federal government helped build public high schools, the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway system, engineered the New Deal and Medicare â and imposed safety and environmental standards on the oil industry. Quoting Lincoln, Obama said that âthe role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.â
We expect him to deliver on this core conviction. But the impact on âthe peopleâ of his signature governmental project so far, health care reform, remains provisional and abstract. Like it or not, a pipe gushing poison into an ocean is a visceral crisis demanding visible, immediate action.
Obamaâs news conference on Thursday â explaining in detail the governmentâs response, its mistakes and its precise relationship to BP â was at least three weeks overdue. It was also his first full news conference in 10 months. Obamaâs recurrent tardiness in defining exactly what he wants done on a given issue â a lapse also evident in the protracted rollout of the White Houseâs specific health care priorities â remains baffling, as does his recent avoidance of news conferences. Such diffidence does not convey a J.F.K.-redux in charge of a neo-New Frontier activist government.
Long before Obama took office, the public was plenty skeptical that government could do anything right. Eight years of epic Bush ineptitude and waste only added to Washingtonâs odor. Now Obama is stuck between a rock and a Tea Party. His credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf. And this in an election year when the very idea of a viable federal government is under angrier assault than at any time since the Gingrich revolution and militia mobilization of 1994-5 and arguably since the birth of the modern conservative movement in the 1960s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30rich.html
hh: