The Oil Drilling Rorschach Test

I was up on the Capitol Hill last week, and a senator was availing me with his theory about how to identify the core differences between Democrats and Republicans. Wake them up at 3 in the morning, tell them the economy is in free fall, and ask them to tell you in 30 seconds what the U.S. government should do. Whatever the nameplate on their door, the Republican will say cut taxes. The Democrat will say increase spending on job creation and benefits. (Here’s to you, Arlen!)

Today we woke up to a similar moment. President Obama announced his long-awaited plan to increase off-shore oil drilling Wednesday. So it’s 3 a.m., you just heard the news. Now, how do you react? I have created a handy crib sheet below. Maybe you will find yourself*:

House Republican Reaction: Outrage, of course. This is a band-aid on a gaping wound. President Obama should not have stopped at the southern Atlantic and Alaskan arctic. As Adam points out below, House Majority John Boehner offered the following statement.

Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’ It’s long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs.

The Senate Republican Reaction: Bitter, bitten-lip, told-ya-so, jealousy. After all, why should Obama get any credit for a Republican idea? “I wanted to remind you that at the bipartisan/bicameral meeting at the White House last month, offshore exploration was one of the job-creating areas Sen. McConnell suggested to the President as an issue that Republicans and the White House can cooperate on immediately,” a spokesman for Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell tells Mike Allen.

The Cynical Political Junky Reaction: Eye-rolling exasperation. Elections are false passion plays, since political promises are often not predictive of future behavior. You remember when Barack Obama stood near the Florida coastline and said, “Off-shore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices tomorrow”? Well he did. Here is the video:

Of course, candidate Obama, covering all his bases, also said he might compromise on the issue. Typical politician.

The Pragmatic Vote Counter Reaction: Machiavellian glee. By caving to his critics, you hope, Obama will inch closer to their defeat. Marc Ambinder lays out the case: “[T]he politics of this move is easy: with one fell swoop, Obama deprives Republicans of the major talking point they’d use to object to more expansive government-based climate remediation and energy prospecting policy.” Just look at the headline on A-1 of the New York Times “Obama To Open Offshore Areas To Oil Drilling.” You plan to go hunting for drunker-than-usual Republican campaign strategists at Bobby Vans later tonight.

The Mainstream Green Reaction: Confusion, self-doubt, frustration. Maybe the pragmatic vote counters are right. And it was sort of nice that Obama stood in front a biofuel fighter jet when he made the announcement. But this just feels bad. And you plan to tap your glass and offer a polite objection at next week’s Common Purpose confab.

The True Believer Liberal Reaction: Outrage at another Rahmish cave. Why give something up if you are not sure to get anything in return? “This brings to mind the definition of insanity,” writes one Daily Kos diarist. “[A]fter fourteen months of the Party of No, does he really think that the Republican party will have any interest in working with him on this?” Remember the Public Option. Long live the Public Option.

*Of course, all categories above are gross generalizations.

Related Topics: drill baby drill, offshore oil drilling, Barack Obama, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • nflfoghorn

    That’s downtown Jacksonville in BO’s background BTW. St. Johns River and all :)
    .
    What, you can’t drill near the coast and find other ways to create green energy at the same time? Why does it have to be either/or?
    .
    “*Of course, all categories…are gross generalizations.” And we’re to find the truth in all this how exactly?

  • nibblybits

    Very amusing post, Scherer.
    .
    I guess I’m in the Pragmatic Voter Counter camp. I find Obama’s divide-and-conquer (with a generous helping of honeyed charm) strategem so interesting. It’s so opposite of the ideologue (your True Believer) pull-back-to-your-base, Rovian 50+1 philosophy. Instead, Obama is perfectly comfortable wading into loyal opposition territory, pick off the moderates and those willing to deal, and push the remainders back into their extremist cubby. The congressional mouth foamers get lumped in with the Tea Party hollerers, and they end up with DeMint and Bachmann as their leadership face, rather than someone sane.
    .
    Give the moderates a reason, then marginalize the rest. Don’t know if the ploy will work in this case, but Obama sure keeps things interesting.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I think your radar’s off. this
    [A]fter fourteen months of the Party of No, does he really think that the Republican party will have any interest in working with him on this?”

    is not the reaction of a True Believer. It doesn’t contain the words “sell out”, “betrayal”, “stab”, “back”, “bus”, or “under”. No “I told ya so”s or keening wails to the Real President, Hillary KuDeanacich, to save us from this crypto-Republican. True Believers see Evil, not Incompetence or an excess of faith in Broder/Friedman/Brooks Axis. That D-Kos poster is, like me, a member of the frustrated pragmatic left, somewhere between MGR and TBLR.

  • Paul-no not that one

    ” Mike Allen.
    .
    The Cynical Political Junky Reaction:”
    .
    Clever formatting MS.

  • http://flounder73.wordpress.com pafro

    The e-mail the Steve Benen got about this today was very interesting:
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023133.php
    Excerpt:

    Finally, by announcing the drilling policy without seeking to extract concessions, the Administration makes clear that it is their policy and they are the centrist/flexible/pragmatic ones — making it harder for Republicans to argue that they accomplished this or that they forced Obama to do it. [...]

    [O]f course, if there was any reason to believe that Republicans would engage in normal negotiation/compromise, then I see why holding this back and trading it for support of a broader package would make sense. But does anyone really think there are Republicans to negotiate with on this stuff? And if Republicans do come to the table, Obama still has plenty of room to give, including by simply agreeing to sign a law that makes proposals like this a matter of statute, not executive discretion.

  • nibblybits

    Could you say that Obama is playing offense instead of defense? (I don’t know enough about basketball strategy to make any correlations.)

  • tstar3

    Waahhh, but I thought Obama wasn’t listening to the Republicans or the Queen of Energy Sarah Heathe Palin.

    This is getting too easy. It’s almost as if Obama gives you the gun, the bullet and a napkin (what a charmer) and allows you to figure out what to do next.

    Look at Mr. Tan’s hyperbolic rant, while the president has removed a decades old ban on offshore drilling here…he still hasn’t allowed us to drill on the moon or at the Long John Silver’s on Kenner Street.

    As then Senator Obama once said “They must think you’re stupid”

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    You remember when Barack Obama stood near the Florida coastline and said, “Off-shore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices tomorrow”?

    This is true. However, I believe Obama’s goal in permitting off shore drilling is not to lower gas prices, but to create jobs. During the campaign, Obama came off as somebody opposed to off shore drilling. But President Obama is not only smart enough, he is PRAGMATIC enough to know his personal beliefs and wishes will sometimes conflict with what is best for the country. This characteristic is what makes Obama different from the ideologies of both parties It is also what is going to see him go down in history as one of American’s great presidents.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    nibblybits — I think Obama is definitely playing offense. In fact, if my basketball knowledge is anything close to being correct I think this is what you call a full court press.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Exactly!

  • kryptik1

    The vote counter approach is ridiculously flawed, because it assumes two things:

    1) Republicans have enough shame that they would moderate themselves at seeing one of their taking points co-opted and/or would see it as a reason to reach back across the aisle and work with Dems.

    2) That the media won’t buy the Republicans fauxtrage hook, line, and sinker.

    Both points are rendered moot, as Republicans have only pushed more extreme the more that they have conceded to them, and have way too much help in the media out there in mainstreaming their extreme ideas and pushing the perception of where the political center is.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    The DC Media Reaction: Off-the-top-of-the-head, psychoanalysis-based speculation about winners and losers, with zero reporting about alternatives, policy impact, or costs and benefits.

  • stuartzechman

    That is starkly (and unfortunately) missing from this piece.

  • spob

    If the GOP is smart, it pockets the concession, and then asks why it will take so long to get things online.
    .
    This is a cynical move by Obama. He wants to give the appearance of supporting oil & gas exploration without actually doing so. Remember, this is the guy who wants sky-high gas prices (just not so fast) because he wants to heal the planet.

  • justmy02cents

    It is very easy to announce a compromise on a hotly debated issue.

    BHO is shrewd and knows perfectly well that backing up the announcement with measurable accomplishments is an entirely different matter.

    As I look into my crystal ball, I can see an onslaught of rules, regulations, and controversey that prevents the implementation of his “grand plan” for energy independence. BUT it will not be his fault! so he gets another pass based on shrewdness as opposed to actual accomplishment.

    just another play from the Axelrod/Emanual playbook that will blunt opposition and accomplish nothing.

    I wonder why he did not sign an executive memo immediately implementing this policy proposal….oh I know…not enough time for the flat Earthers to tie it up and prevent it.

    In adition, New Jersey has a massive refining capacity, why close NJ waters and force the drilled oil to be ultimately transported to NJ for refining?

    this whole thing smells like a dead fish laying the dock in July.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Where do you get that Obama wants sky high oil and gas prices??? Wasn’t it under President Bush that gas prices went up to $4-$5? They’ve been around $2-$2.50 in my area for over a year and yes they’ve started to nearly $3 recently, but its the traders doing the same things they were doing before the banks failed that is causing it, not Obama’s policies.

  • kbanginmotown

    Nibbly/Dee: Tough to make 3-pointers or even layups when you’ve got POTUS in your face.

  • spob

    OBAMA: “Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we’ve been consuming energy as if it’s infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So…” HARWOOD: “So could these high prices help us?” BARACK OBAMA: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.” (CNBC, 6/10/08)

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    So, would you want drilling WITHOUT rules and regulations? As for controversy…well, the issue itself is very controversial. I had thought this news would make the “drill baby drill” folks happy. But NOOOO, its not enough drilling for them. They won’t be happy until the entire country is outlined with off shore oil rigs, every inch of federal land is dotted with wells.

    I’m not against drilling. But come on! There has to be a balance between drilling and protecting the planet for future generations. The greed of oil barons and their ilk, and the willingness of the ignorant to blindly follow their wishes will one day turn this planet into a waste land.

  • spob

    Jeez, erie, you may want to change your underwear.

  • nflfoghorn

    The Neocon Talkers Reaction: Sheer outrage, simply because BO did it.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    So rude, spob. Don’t you have anything constructive to say?

  • spob

    erie, off-shore drilling has a very good environmental record.
    .
    And no one wants drilling without rules and regulations. What we don’t want is a cynical move by a guy who wants sky-high energy prices (so long as it’s a gradual adjustment) to say he’s for drilling but then hamstring its occurrence.

  • the committee

    Boehner: “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense”
    .
    What is this? It sounds like to Boehner, the earth is one big cherry, and he wants to make sure it’s good and popped.
    .
    As a pragmatic socialist, I read Obama’s move as a rhetorical concession with both political and, more importantly, material consequences, just like the “spending freeze” announced in the SotU. The liberal true believers a la Steve Benen think Obama’s trying to peel off moderate conservatives (even though there is no such thing) and marginalizing the crazies (even though the constantly get cover from people like Scherer).
    .
    The logical extension of this sort of move would be for Obama to announce that he has formed a bipartisan commission to investigate the influence of Kenyans in the executive branch. I guess I get the thinking here, I just don’t know why the administration thinks this move helps them, or anybody. Obama is quite adept at using a light touch to make Republicans look ridiculous; I don’t know why he doesn’t go there more often (or ever).

  • spob

    lighten up erie, your paean to Obama isn’t very constructive either. It’s not informative, and ascribing the best of motives to this act is sycophantic.

  • Art Pepper

    When talking about vote counting, just remember that the bipartisan negotiations will happen entirely within the Democratic party.

    Nobody believes the GOP will be serious about climate change or energy indepedence. At most, one or two moderate Republicans might hop on board (at risk of getting primaried).

  • mycophile

    “he gets another pass based on shrewdness as opposed to actual accomplishment.”

    If it turns out as you predict (implementation prevented), then I will see it differently than you do. Not only will he get another pass based on shrewdness, he will also get kudos from me for an actual accomplishment — that of preventing a purely “feel good” for Americans who operate from fears that they blame for which they incorrectly place, another federal hand-out to the oilmen, and more environmental pollution/oil spills/etc, thus making more sane energy ideas all the more possible to develop.
    .
    Don’t forget that the off-shore oil leases already held are not being drilled – they are being held for when prices are high enough to make a killing. Oil companies have ZERO actual care for “jobs”. what is “best for the country” , or the environment. If it was not for the possiblilty of huge successful lawsuits against them, they wouldn’t even ever pretend to give a sh.

  • Art Pepper

    Are you asking them to actually learn something about energy policy? That’s a lot of work… Peak oil. Climate science. Economics. whew! It’s very tiring.

  • FlownOver

    “…and a senator was availing me with his theory…”

    You might want to check a usage guide on that one, Michael.

  • nibblybits

    C’mon, spob. Pointing out simple supply and demand realities is not the same as “wanting sky high gas prices.” You undermine yourself.

  • justmy02cents

    Myco,

    Can I assume from your statement about the motivation of BIG OIL that you actually have a decision making capacity at big oil and are privy to their thinking?

    I’d truely be surprised if that is the case.

    The obstructionist and flat-earth lawsuits that you refer to have NOT added any jobs except for lawyers and staff and opposed to huge numbers of primary and secondary jobs created by just ONE oil rig.

    since you did not ask, I’ll tell you that I believe that the new oil production should be RUSHED and 1/2 of the profit from each lease should be explicitedly targeted to safer, cleaner fossil fuel production and new energy alternatives.

    Keep the economy going and find a long-term solution while you are at it…..

    I’d like to christen this philosophy as “rational environmentalism”

    Care to jump on board?

  • nibblybits

    You may end up being right that this move will garner zero Republican votes, but in a way, that’s not the most important thing.
    .
    Remember this is an election year. If Obama can drive the narrative that he’s making concessions, that he’s holding out his hand to the other side, the electorate will give him credit. If such a move makes the Republicans more apoplectic and shrill, Obama sounds positively serene and rational in comparison.
    .
    He really has no match on the other side. The guy is playing chess and is 5 steps ahead of Republican “leaders”. He acts; they re-act, and not well.

  • sasquatch08

    I certainly hope that crib sheet doesn’t actually apply in reality but I’m sure there’s more than a few people that fall into each of those categories.

    Personally I thought the President’s recent statement was pretty good. There is no way we’re going to wake up tomorrow, next month or next year and suddenly have all the “green” energy we need to run the country.

    Offshore drilling of our own reserves is a stopgap that helps the country in a lot of ways. It decreases our dependence of foreign oil supplies that could be cut off, it lowers the price of oil products due to the decrease in shipping costs, hopefully reduces the number of shipping vessels waiting on the coast for gas prices to go up 10 cents, creates oil industry jobs in this country and provides an energy source for the near future while other sources are developed and come online.

    With the exception of the real lefties who thing this is 1) pandering to the Republicans or 2) a devastating setback to the environment I don’t see why anyone would get bent out of shape about this.

  • justmy02cents

    Another vote for

    R A T I O N A L

    E N V I R O N M E N T A L I S M

    practice saying it….maybe PRAGMATIC should be substituted for RATIONAL…it would be less offensive to the radical left.

  • diecash1

    by a guy who wants sky-high energy prices (so long as it’s a gradual adjustment)

    Disingenuous much spob? Why do you continue to twist Obama’s words like this? It’s an obvious lie that completely undermines your post. The statement you quote was from an interview with CNBC on 6/10/08 and Obama was referring to the rapid rise of gas prices under W during the Iraq war. He never stated a desire for higher gas prices as you contend. He said it would have been better for consumers if the rise in the price of gas was a gradual adjustment, not a sudden spike.
    ..
    http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/563672859.html

  • shepherdwong

    “…if my basketball knowledge is anything close to being correct I think this is what you call a full court press.”
    .
    And if my knowledge of Beltway politics is anything close to being correct you might also call it a full press court.

  • spob

    Nibbly, can I have some of that dope you’re smoking? Obama was not talking about the realities of supply and demand, but his desire for higher prices as a means to switch to the so-called green energy.

  • Art Pepper

    nibbly: Exactly my point. Garnering Republican votes is the least important thing. It’s like hunting snarks. But I predict there will be tough negotiations on the broader issue of energy policy within the Democratic party.

  • xxception

    You use the word “gun”. According to the reactions over the past week or so, that amounts to a threat of violence. Oh right, that only applies to conservatives. Liberals always get a lower standard.

  • xxception

    The problem, Art, is Obama’s definition of bipartianship is, “you will come completely over to my side and I will not negotiate any of my ideas.” Merely inviting the other side into the room, but ignoring their ideas or voting down every amendment they offer for months is NOT bipartianship.

  • xxception

    How long will it take this to reach the market? 10 years or so as was quoted in ANWAR? Wouldn’t that make this as much of a boondoggle as ANWAR? I’m actually for this move, but couldn’t help pointing this out. One of the reasons quoted for NOT drilling in ANWAR was how long it would take it to get to market and how little effect it would have on the market. Why is that not a concern now?

  • nibblybits

    spob, that you can read the exchange you posted and conclude as you did is beyond partisan to plain hallucination.

  • sasquatch08

    “As a pragmatic socialist…”

    What exactly is a pragmatic socialist? Is that a fair weather socialist? One that picks and chooses socialist ideas to like? A socialist that only thinks the government has the right to take personal property on alternating Thursdays?

    I hate to be a purist but: pragmatism + [insert ideology here] = oxymoron by definition.

    Pragmatism is not possible if you follow an ideology and ideology isn’t possible if you follow pragmatism; the two are mutually exclusive.

    The blogs I found for people claiming to be “pragmatic socialists” show a clear lack of critical reasoning skills. The people there fall into a few different categories: socialists who don’t want to admit they are socialist, people who don’t understand socialism, people who don’t know what pragmatic means and people who have no idea what either word means but appear to be looking for the acceptance of others as willfully ignorant as they are.

    The one reasonably “well thought out” piece (that is it was recognizable as English even though there was no recognizable logic) I found argued that “pragmatic socialists” recognize that capitalism, due to human nature, can’t be exterminated overnight and therefore such people accommodate those with some limited capitalist views until such time as socialism can prevail. Which means, if history serves, that they are waiting for the gas chambers and firing squads to become operational.

    Please explain what “pragmatic socialism” is other than an oxymoron.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Every time I read a spob comment it’s as though the seagull flying over my back deck has just hit my keyboard with his guano. Plus what Jim foolish liberal said also.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Count me as a fan of very high gas prices, say about half what most euros pay.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    blunting the opposition is a huge accomplishment.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: You are exactly right.

  • apr2563

    sasquatch: Sort of like Libertarians?

  • theotherjimmyolson

    @15.2 It,s not a concern for any rational person because you can’t start drilling the day before yesterday.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    There is no explanation. You are correct.

  • tstar3

    By the way you spelled exception, I thought you might have been one of the “young eagles” at the ta-tas bar with Hip Hopping Micheal Steele. There is a difference when you use the word gun and then say an individual’s name.

    I’ll talk to you like I do my third graders.

    Sally has a gun-GOOD.

    Sally has a gun and wants to shoot Jeff- BAD

    Get it?

  • xxception

    I agree jimmy. Yet, it was a big reason used to argue against drilling in ANWAR. I’m just curious why those that used that argument against ANWAR are strangely silent now.

  • xxception

    apr, you are not understanding Libertarian thought if you are equating the two.

  • sacredh

    Does anybody else think that this looks like a move straight out of Bill Clinton’s playbook? Take a basically republican idea and make it your own? You get the credit while depriving the republicans of a talking point. Obama looks like he’s going to do what the republicans wanted all along and then be able to point to the republicans and claim that even when he does something they want all they do is obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. He looks presidential and they look like petulant children.

  • apr2563

    sasqiatch: IMO Libertarians are “pragmatic Republicans”. They disavow the family values crowd but embrace the “get the government off my back crowd”.

  • mycophile

    justcents@ 11.4~~
    .
    1) i am properly called out on sloppy posting — I should have written thta “It seems to me” in preface to my characterizations of the attitude of oil comapnies (btw, I did not type “Big Oil”, i purposefully generalized to all.) I have little direct experience with oil companies, but I do have lots of experience with those of another mass-extractive industry, timber. In that arena, I can confidently report that the bigger they are, the less they care about jobs except as tools with which to conduct business, the less they care about what is best for the country unless it is best for their empires and quarterly profits, and the less they care about the environment except and it might be benfificial to their 10-year projections of supply, but even more importantly as it might effect public outcry for regulation of their activities
    .
    So, I admit that I was extrapolating from my direct experiences and voluminous second-hand information from countless neighbors employed and formerly-employed in the timber industry. I would bet that I am correct about the attitude of those that make decision in the oil biz, but, no, I cannot prove it. I suspect others could, though.
    .
    2) The idea of a “rational environmentalism” sounds good, but, as always, the devil would be in the details. I have seen plenty of cases where “rational” was used as code for “let your guard down and allow further loss of natural resources and further degredation of natural processes for promise of future paradigm changes, and then we stonewall the process of making those changes, using such tried-and-ture techniques of always calling for more “study” when we don’t like the conclusions of the studiies and then we will get you back at the table to allow further degradations of natural resources and processes under the same call for ration.”
    .
    That’s how we ended up with less than 5% of the Old Growth forests we used to have here in the West.
    .
    If you could come up with a process for preventing that, and, even better, for conducting truly collaborative brainstorming and implementation (as opposed to conducting “compromise”, which is a misnomer for “horse-trading”), you would find me all for it.

    3) It is now your turn to address your sloppiness. I did not refer to any of what you call obstructionist and flat-earth lawsuits. You read that in to my words. I did not write WHAT energy ideas were “sane”. You would be surprised to know my objections to many of the ‘alternative’ energy ideas that have been floated, both the well-known and the obscure.

    .

    The obstructionist and flat-earth lawsuits that you refer to have NOT added any jobs except for lawyers and staff and opposed to huge numbers of primary and secondary jobs created by just ONE oil rig.

    since you did not ask, I’ll tell you that I believe that the new oil production should be RUSHED and 1/2 of the profit from each lease should be explicitedly targeted to safer, cleaner fossil fuel production and new energy alternatives.

    Keep the economy going and find a long-term solution while you are at it…..

    I’d like to christen this philosophy as “rational environmentalism”

    Care to jump on board?

    Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/31/the-oil-drilling-rorschach-test/?replytocom=151870#respond#ixzz0jn13RU18

  • mycophile

    whoops, talk about sloppy posting! I left the copy of your post that I was refering to at the bottom of my response to it.

    wouldn’t want anybody confusing your opinions for mine, now, would we?

  • mycophile

    beware characterizing what Libertarian thought is.
    .
    Libertarian thought and the platforms of the Libertarian Party are not the same, and they are incongruent.
    .
    And there are a lot of people who call themselves “Libertarians” that butcher libertariansim

  • apr2563

    mycophile: I was responding to sasquatch’s dispute with “pragmatic socialism”. After all, someone like Tucker Carlson claims not to be Republican but a Libertarian. It seemed to me all he is doing is removing himself a short distance from social conservatism but is still a Republican.
    .
    I have no idea what you consider Libertarian. I’m not sure what is considered Democratic today. But, I do know my core beliefs. And I know I will vote for the candidate closest to those beliefs.
    .
    Tell me what you believe being a Libertarian means.

  • mycophile

    I was taking advantage of an opportunity to point out a caution, and had not intended my comment to be directed to anyone in particular — it was a reponse to a topic, not any particular specifics in this thread.
    .
    I will first now carefully read what apr2563 posted, and then perhaps reply to apr’s request of me. It IS one of my favorite topics.
    .
    So little time, so many corners . . .

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Sounds like more partisan hyperbole from the right to me. Lies, innuendo and rumor.
    _______

    @theotherjimmyo…

    The British pay for gas (or as they say “petrol”) by the liter about what we pay for a gallon; and all of that extra money is going into health care–as does a large portion of the cost in every other European country. I haven’t heard of them screaming as much as some Americans over the cost. Perhaps its because they know what they are paying for they are getting back.

  • mycophile

    apr2563 @ 18,2~
    .
    I’ll go at this in steps (and for all those who would be want to ask me “What makes YOU and authority?”, in order to spare you and everyone else havign to read a novelette I would post to answer that, I will simply make a climer here: EVERYTHING I WRITE ABOUT THIS TOPIC SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE PREFACED WITH “THIS IS THE WAY I SEE IT”) sorry for all caps, but I don’t want this missed.
    .
    Step 1:
    .
    Libertarianism, at its core, is only two statements:
    .
    A) Hurt no man.
    (A phrase coined by chauvenists and/or generalists who should have used the word “person”, or something, instead of “man”.)
    .
    B) After that, do what you please.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: Does hurt no person include helping others?

  • Art Pepper

    xxception: Riiiiiiiight.

  • shepherdwong

    Yes.

  • maverick2k9

    “Obama was not talking about the realities of supply and demand, but his desire for higher prices as a means to switch to the so-called green energy.”
    .
    Desire for higher prices??
    .
    So are you suggesting that Obama wants to impose sanctions on Iran, so that the oil prices are higher? So are you not in favour of sanctions against Iran?

  • apollyon07

    It’s simple guys. Libertarian= socially liberal+economically conservative.

  • apr2563

    So apolly how do you balance the 2 when you go to vote. Bush was socially conservative but certainly not fiscally conservative. Everytime the Republicans get power they show they are opposite of your definition of Libertarianism. Reagan and Bush both hugely increased our deficit while embracing “family values”.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “Whatever the nameplate on their door, the Republican will say cut taxes. The Democrat will say increase spending on job creation and benefits.”

    Actually any liberal with at least 1 course in economics would look at where we are in the business cycle and say target tax cuts at job creation activities and increase gov’t spending on investments with high multiplier effects, such as economy transforming infrastructure investments.

    Sorry for interfering with the typical, stereotypical BS.

  • mycophile

    first, I mistakenly posted my first installment in answer to apr’s question of me as to what I believe Libertarianism to be @ 17.1
    .
    next, to apollyono @ 18.4~ that’s a pretty good slogan for an approximation of the gist of how I would see it working best on the ground, but there is room for, and there are plenty of, individuals who extrapolate from Libertarian principles to justify behaviors which I find antithetical to social liberalism and/or economic conservatism
    .
    I kinda’ like your defintion as a description of a socio-political position that I feel would be wise to be widely embraced in this country, but I would lobby for a new word to be coined for it, so that it could not be denied due to the baggage of pre-existing conditions (to borrow some phrasing.)
    .
    apr2563, I will continue under your 17.2, for ease of your follow

  • mycophile

    hey apollyono7~ How about SLEC (Socially Liberal Economically Conservative)? It’s almost “slic” (sic)
    .
    (jeez, did I really type that?) Nope. it would have to be better than that.

  • mycophile

    apr@2563 ~~
    .
    Good question. In my mind, yes, but I report that the concept is NOT enshrined in Libertarian philosophy.
    .
    Where it comes in is in the “do as you please” part. If One wants to help others, one is free to do so. However, one is also then free to refrain from doing so.

    Libertarian philosphy is purposefully just those two “rules”, for similar reasons as is said that the Framers had for leaving a lot of specifics out of the Bill of Rights — so as not to give the impression that what was not in it was not intended to be a “right”.
    .
    Debating the question within Libertarian guru circles in the late 60′s, I recall it being argued that in a Libertarian system, the helping of others would happen to an even larger degree than it happens under our current system because of a complex set of domino effects too much to write about all at once.
    .
    I will say this about that now, though — a lot of it sounded like: “Don’t worry, greed would not run rampant over misfortune. As proof, I am a greedy person and I can tell you that, under a Libertarian system, my greed would lead me to help others less fortunate than me, in order to make sure the system did not collapse and also so that I would not lose my reputation and backing by the other influential individuals and sectors that I would be relying on for acceptance in order to effectively satisfy my greed.”
    .
    If that does not sound satisfying to you, I will not be surprised. It certainly made me wonder about the motivations of those individuals.

  • mycophile

    sasq @ 16~~
    .
    “Pragmatism is not possible if you follow an ideology and ideology isn’t possible if you follow pragmatism; the two are mutually exclusive.”
    .
    If i were to substitute “philosophical fervor” for “ideology”, would you feel that statement to be still be accurate?
    .
    You see, I often have stated that I am a passionate and vocal advocate for the application of my philosphies, and I walk my talk to such extremes that I am sometimes ridiculed for sillyness, and yet I am not a purist – that is, I will compromise my principles in order to live to fight for the light another day.
    .
    What does that make me? (he says, visualizing spob and newfreeedomblog ready to type “stupid”, or “starry-eyed idealist”, or “kool-aid drinker” . . . )

  • apr2563

    mycophile: Thanks for your response. That is what I feared was the stated Libertarian philosphy. Currently there is nothing preventing people helping others. However, there is still great need. Therefore, government has to be involved in easing the hurt the needy have.

  • redraven937

    This is a cynical move by Obama. He wants to give the appearance of supporting oil & gas exploration without actually doing so. Remember, this is the guy who wants sky-high gas prices (just not so fast) because he wants to heal the planet.

    Okay, bold claim. What evidence will you use to support this?

    “But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.”

    So… are you suggesting that a more efficient energy policy is a bad thing? Something, perhaps, deserving of derision? I mean, I would assume that the $4/gallon gas prices got us out of the SUV market, which are hideously inefficient vehicles with little redeeming value, even if you care nothing of the environment (like you don’t, presumably).
    .
    I guess I am just confused as to why you are against capitalistic efficiency, Spob. Without high gas prices, there is no incentive for automakers to get +40-mpg engines on the market, until perhaps it is too late. The high prices of a few years ago helped the nation considerably in the realm of encouraging conservation, not for the sake of environment, but for the sake of efficiency.
    .
    How do you resolve the cognitive dissonance between your aversion to saddling future generations with debt and your tacit approval of saddling future generations with a colossal mismanagement of natural resources? What, in your mind, is the difference? Do you assume future generations will invent something and solve all their own problems? If so, would they not solve their own debt problems too? You cannot be for one and against another.

  • mycophile

    apr~
    .
    I feel compelled to repeat my caution~~ Do not confuse Libertarianism with stated Libertarian philosophy
    .
    There were many in that group of gurus that I mentioned, and many more since then who identify with Libertariansim, who feel quite strongly that helping others is an essential element of a proper society. As well, there is a lot ot be said for the ability for more people to more help others to a greater extent under a Libertarian system that there is under our current system.
    .
    As well, as in any system derived from any philosphy, the devil is in the details. I did not like the ultimate answer that I heard as a youth to what seemed to me to be the most important question of “what would prevent abuses?” (I was a Young American for Freedom, and the answer smacked of what I considered failed, old Republican Party perspectives, instead of new, better thinking) but, since then, as I have continued to ponder that question and have gained more wisdom and perspective with experience, I think there just had not yet been enough brainstorming on the subject at the time.
    .
    In my view, there is nothing that flows from the “2 rules” that forecloses government from having roles such as social safety nets or other services for the common good. However, if such services were not agreed to by a super-super majority of the electorate, then they would be antithetical to Libertarianism.
    .
    That’s why a LIbertarian Party risks being antithetical to Libertarianism — under our current voting structure, Libertarianism could be foisted upon the country against the will of 49.9% of the voters, by only 51.1% of the voters, which would be much lower a percentage of the eligible voters, which would be an even lower percentage of the citizens. That amounts to organized coercion, which is one of the most basic non-nos that philosophically follows from the 2 rules.

  • mycophile

    apr@ 18,5~~

    I would guess that apolly would say that Reagan, Bush, and the Repubs that have taken office were not Libertarians.
    .
    I would say that
    .
    And I would say to you not to vote for anyone who does not meet your criteria for being philosophicaly and operationally wise for this country’s well being, no matter what they call themselves, or what anyone else calls them. There is an interesting slogan from my early daze in the Libertarian cirlces: Vote No For President. It was a n attention-getting expression of the idea of alowing voters to vote “none-of-the-above”, allowing voting to be a referendum on the authority of the “lesser of evils” paradigm, and thereby have the possibiltiy of the powers-that-be getting the motivation to allow candidates on the ballot that were not beholden to them, or else rick losing the saction of the people for their game to go on.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: It appears to me Libertarianism is in conflict with itself.
    1. You say you are not connected to stated Libertarian philosophy. Does that mean you are not really a Libertarian?
    2. Your stating that a Libertarian society would be more encouraging of individual charity. Why would a true Libertarian need motivation from anyone or expect society to be motivated by them?
    3. Would you need a super-super majority to get anything done? How does this fit in the definition of democracy?

  • apr2563

    mycophile: Just from anecdoal, personal experience I find most Libertarians are latent Republicans.
    I have voted in many, many elections. I always vote for the person that best meets my beliefs which I feel are in my countries best interests. Does this mean I vote only if that person agrees with my views completely. No. If that was my criteria I would never vote. Do I always vote Democratic. Yes. Well, once I voted for a Republican for Senator and he turned out to be as reactionary as I should have expected. That cured me.
    /
    The Democratic Party is much closer to my core beliefs and the Republican far removed. Therefore, sometimes I have to hold my nose and vote.

  • xxception

    Perhaps you also need to look up the definition of the word “sarcasm.” On a side note, my name is derived from dating my wife. She told me I made her break all her rules about men. Hence, I was the exception to her rules. Various spellings and deviations are used according to what has already been claimed. Your idea is so much more exciting though.

  • xxception

    So, you didn’t take offense at Palin’s “reload” comment since it mentioned neither a gun or anyone’s name, correct?

  • xxception

    As a card carrying member of the Libertarian party, I am very familiar with both, thank you very much.

  • mycophile

    apr @ 17.6~~

    After the 2 rules, It quickly gets pretty long-winded to discuss, and your post reminds me that I allowed myself to go to far too fast.

    Whlie there may be some internal inconsistencies in my positions that I am not aware of, I don’t feel the ones you mention, so I suspect I was inadequate in my explanations.
    .
    To avoid expanding the inadequacies, I will try to confine my responses to your questions as-is:
    .
    “You say you are not connected to stated Libertarian philosophy” — I bailed from the Libertarian ‘movement’ when it became interested in forming a political Party. Therefore, I do not identify with the stated philosohies of any organized Libertarian groups.
    .
    “Does that mean you are not really a Libertarian?” — actualy, I usually say that I am one of a relatively small number of ‘true’ Libertarians. One of the gruop of gurus, for instance, went back to being a Repubilcan, and has been a California US Representative for years now. For him, Libertarian acivism was just another rung on ladder of contacts and resume entries for a political carreer.
    .
    “Your stating that a Libertarian society would be more encouraging of individual charity.” — What I believe is that a Libertarian society would: 1) in itself, result in less needy people due to class oppression, and 2) result in more people having more resources and more control over where those resources go and thus be more able to apply resources to needy people.
    .
    “Why would a true Libertarian need motivation from anyone or expect society to be motivated by them?” — I am not sure what you are asking here. But maybe this gets at it: Libertarianism relies on the universality of individual motivation to individually succeed (which some crassly call “selfishness”.) When in a society, sustainign that success depends on both a predictable and reliable system of interaction and the belief by others that one is also predictable and reliable. Libertariansim does not assume that Libertarians would need motivation, it assumes that a Libertarian society would maximize the beneficial excercises of basic human motivations.
    .
    “Would you need a super-super majority to get anything done?” — Now we are in deep water. The idea would be that it would take a super-super majority in order to justify establishing the system, and a super-super majority to abandon it, but most assume that less-than-system decisions would be made by simple majority votes. However, the idea is that there would be FAR fewer decisions to have to make, because actions would be made by individuals each deciding for themselves, and thus, in essence, mostly “voting with their dollars and feet”, not at the ballot box.
    .
    ” How does this fit in the definition of democracy?’ — In whatever way a super-super majority would eventually agree it should. That looks like a cop-out, but I don’t know how else to say it in few words.

    All this begs questions of how to get from our current situation to a Libertarian society while minimizing the pains of transition, not the least of which would be the genrationally-instilled and evolved attitudes of lack of personal responsibility (the world owes me a living, and even if not, I don’t know how to take care of myslelf, anyway.) I decided a long time ago the only philosphically consistent path to take was to operate in my life as best I could as much Libertarianism as possible, showing by example how it feels better, hope more and more people did likelwise as time went on, and if Libertarian philosophy really was such a good way, then it would eventually catch on. If not, then no harm done. Evolution, not revolution.

  • mycophile

    xxeption @ 18.10~~
    ;
    Both what?

  • mycophile

    apr @ 18.9~
    .
    the way you dscribe how you chose to vote and sometime do vote is fairly common, I suspect.
    .
    I value diversity (not just honor it or allow it, etc.) It truly takes all kinds of perspectives and approaches to make this world go ’round. Thanks for being part of it as a person who thinks and cares.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: Let me disabuse you of a myth about Liberals. We do not like a dependent society. We want a fair society that does not want an oppressive olicharchy determining outcomes.
    .
    My father was a Liberal. He helped form and supported Unions so workers could have a life of self-determination. He hated what he called the “dole”. Durning the depression (another crisis brought on by our investor society) he lost his farm to locust and the dust bowl. Thankfully, he was able to relocate his family and through the WPA and hard work had, by the time I was born, a new trade and made himself solvent again.
    .
    What Liberals want is equality of opportunity. When you have Enron, the savings and loan scandal, Bernie Madoff, the manipulations by banks and Wall Street that brought us to our current status, it is hard to not see a pattern of corporate greed and a need for strict government intervention. (First we need campaign finance reform).
    .
    I believe in that term dreaded by Glen Beck, social justice.

  • mycophile

    apr2563 @17.8~~

    I am not sure why you assumed that I needed to be freed from error regarding Liberals’ stances on living in a dependent society or a fiar society free of an oppresive oligarchy, but that is no matter, because I was quite glad to see you post your formulation of it for all to see. It was quite well said, I thought. If our dialouge regarding your questions of me concerning my takes on Libertarianism helped lead to said post, I am once again reinforced to continue my efforts to affect public discourse by participating in it with the attitude and beliefs I do hold.
    .
    If you question me about what I am to say next here, I am afraid it will be even harder to explain in few words than was what I tried to do about Libertarianism, but here goes:
    .
    I consider myself extremely liberal and extremely conservative. And they are not contradictory. In fact, they are quite complimentary.
    .
    I find what most people call being a LIberal or a Conservative to be a labels for specifc methodologies by which to promote their pet manifestations of liberality or conservatism. I find most of those Liberal and Conservative methodologies to both be Radical.
    .
    Your description of your Liberalism is far less radical than any I have ever heard, and about as noble an approach to addressing the ills of a system already in place as an approach to do so could be, short of pulling the covers completely off of the game and somehow causing it to lose its grip upon us all so we could design and build a sane system. Because you are completely correct to be wary of oligarchic control, yet you, like most, may think that government can control it, when it is government itself that is controled by it.
    .
    Both Liberalsim and Conservatism are born of trying to fix the ills of sovereignties that are all clever ruses masking the control of unseen hands — clever ruses to get “citizens” to invent technologies and with which to produce goods with which those unseen hands maintain, strengthen, and extend their controls over other puppets that operate other ruses of soveriegnty. It has been that way since the Great Pirates made kings and empires by bringing them resources and goods from afar with which kings garnered the fealty of subjects.. For instance, international bankers and arms dealers feed all sides of soverign wars and other struggles and therefore profit during all phases of conflict and receive spoils no matter the outcome. In times of apparent “peace” they profit also and extend their control via fueling “prosperity”.
    .
    That sounds to most like conspiracy theory or hallucination, but to me it is neither, so I say so to free them from feeling a need to charge me. It is simply what I firmly believe, and I recognize they cannot suspend their own beliefs far enough to consider that I might be correct. And I might be incorrect.
    .

    .

  • ricardo4max

    More smoke and mirrors from the liar in chief. I’ll believe this when I see the crude being loaded on ships or pumped through the pipeline. Meanwhile, just more hot air and propaganda for the state run media.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: It has been interesting reading your perspective on Libertarianism. Thank you for the dialogue. We seem to both have strong feelings about our political philosophy. I wish you well in yours.

  • mycophile

    apr2563 @ 18.13~~
    .
    Likewise respect and thanks.
    .
    going out the door, three adjustments to exaggerations in my late-night 17.9, and a punchline:
    .
    1) While I find Radicalism in both “Liberal” and “Conservative” approaches, I find far more “Conservative” proposals to be so than I do “Liberal” approaches. As well, I find all Conservative approaches to be far more facilitative of the ills of the game than are the less radical Liberal approaches. Yours I find the most sane in the face of a rigged game.
    .
    2) And it is all relative. How “radical” an idea is depends on how much change it proposes. In that sense, Libertarianism is also radical. If my unseen hands (beyond governments) scenario is correct, that would make Libertarianism more radical than any Liberal or Conservative ideas, because the latter two would each be ideas that attempt to assist those hands by making the populace feel taken care of by the hands’ supported populace management systems.
    .
    3) My “belief” in my unseen hand explanation is really more like “only way I can make sense out of it”. SOMETHING is not as it seems, of that my gut has always known. There have to be reasons why even as seemingly great as the ideas and codifications upon which we are told our country is rock-solid founded upon (such as “freedom”) have yet, over more than 230 years of time time, still led to empire-building on our part, and our federal government pulling the wool over the eyes of our citizens is still stock-in-trade. Instead of becoming ever greater in heart, we have become ever greater in meddling; instead of becoming ever more “one out of many” (e pluribus unum), we have become bitterly divided into countless cliques, villifying one another.

    4) So, I educate about Libertarianism thorugh word and deed (not power-over), toward a long-term solution, and I support your version of Liberalism in the meantime because it is the most sensible means by which to make the rigged game we are still stuck with as sane and compassionate as possible. Because both approaches are towards the same end — trying to acheive the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

  • apr2563

    mycophile: I hope this doesn’t spoil the pleasant discussion we have been having and have concluded so civily. I just today read this definition of a Libertarian. It may not be new. A Libertarian is:
    .
    A Republican who smokes pot.
    .
    Sorry, no offense. Couldn’t help myself.

  • mycophile

    apr @ 18.15 ~~
    .
    to me, no offense in that whatsoever! Kinda’ amusing, actually.
    .
    1) Way more Republicans could use to intake cannabis (“pot”, although it is hard for me to recommend putting any combusted vegetable material in one’s lungs, however. I would recommend ingestion methods far easier on one’s body) Republicans are, in general, way too uptight. Not a good idea, though, for them to mix cannabis with alcohol. That combination can be scary in anyone who is fond of handling dangerous weapons (such as automobiles.)

    2) I can report that the primary pushers of Libertarianism were absolutely not cannabis users — and, while many who found Libertarianism compelling but asked hard questions right along with me were, indeed, pot smokers (Cannabis intake often leads to questioning even one’s own assumptions), but not I at the time, nor am I these days.
    .
    3) Cannabis nor its uses by humans are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Some people can gamble and have the fun and/or profit of it augment their lives, for some gambling leads to problems for them. Some people can have a glass of wine every day to the benefit of their stress and health, others cannot drink any wine at all without exacerbating stress management and health problems. And, even for the same person, it can be one way during certain parts of their lives, and the other way at other times. So it is with cannabis. Failing to recognize that doing something is harmful to oneself and others and yet continuing to do so is not a virtue, but making sweeping prohibitions of things that can be benign or beneficial to some or many is also not virtuous.

  • justmy02cents

    mycophile 18.16

    Man that’s really deep man

    sorry could not resist….

  • mycophile

    justcents @ 18.17~~

    getting back to the subject that headed this blog, I hope that any off-shore drilling is not so deep.
    .
    My (by marriage) relatives’ wells were the first to leak in the Santa Barbara channel, ruining the beaches and killing/harning all kinds of creatures. And it was because of logisitcs around pumping through “solid” rock to deep deposits.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Here ladies and gentlemen, is the right in a “nut” shell. The liar in chief (how veddy original) gives the right a huge piece of what they have been screaming for, no quid pro quo, and that is somehow smoke and mirrors. could you make this up?

  • theotherjimmyolson

    @ 10.7 Exactly. And I have pumped quite a few liters of Benzin myself @4DM50.

  • theotherjimmyolson

    Oops. 2DM50.

  • timothyjaysbcglobalnet

    the writer forgot these boxes to check:

    House Democrat
    Senate Democrat
    Far-Left Radical
    Communist
    Socialist
    Reverend Wright follower

    Until you add these “choices” your article lacks continuity!

blog comments powered by Disqus