The Politics of the Petroleum Economy (2)

When BP CEO Tony Hayward went before Congress and refused to answer questions asked by both Democratic and Republican members, you had to wonder whether we were finally going to see some bipartisanship. When Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, blasted President Obama for his “shakedown” of BP, we got a good example of what ails the Republican Party.

Republicans these days are exhibiting signs of role confusion with respect to the federal government. Is the federal government the problem or the solution to the millions of barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf? Were feds responsible in any way for what took place at the April 20, 2010 explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig? After the fact, what’s the appropriate role for the federal government in getting the well plugged and cleaning up the mess?

The Republican view of the role of the federal government is generally one of “limited government”. Conservatives, libertarians, and the rest of the “limited government” crowd have never been in lock-step about the precise limits of federal authority, but most have viewed those limits as national defense and little else. Let’s look at the U.S. Constitution, and at the exact language from the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If we look at the words, there’s lot of room for a broad federal role, and in the case of the Deepwater Horizon event, for an activist, hands-on response.

The day before the remarks by Congressman Barton, and in response to the announcement from the White House that BP had agreed to set up a $20 billion escrow account, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) issued a press release that stated:

“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda. The American people know much better.”

Despite the RSC position, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner pressured Congressman Barton to apologize, and then apologize again, when the first apology was deemed too ambiguous. Why are the Republicans backing off? The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) clearly dropped the ball — and was perhaps negligent — in its oversight of off-shore drilling. It’s questionable whether MMS has ever been sufficiently independent from oil industry influence. The anti-regulation ideology of conservatives and the Bush Administration contributed to a regulatory environment at MMS that placed the industry responsible for regulating itself.

Since January 2009, the Obama Adminstration has not moved fast enough to change the culture, and change out personnel at MMS. (One could argue that President Obama had other more important priorities such as the economy and jobs, but in fairness, how likely would the party of “no” have been to go along with aggressive, new regulatory authority for MMS?)

So that leaves us with the question of what the federal government should be doing now. Getting the well closed off, the oil cleaned up, the MMS reformed and its regulatory authority greatly strengthened would be a good start. Perhaps a few key prosecutions of those who contributed to negligent homicide might send a clear message to those who would put lives and the livelihood of millions at risk. And along the way, how about making the events at the Deepwater Horizon facility the poster child for the fall campaign. Democrats should begin to aggressively recast their message for the mid-term elections.

Between the banks and financial industry, big health insurance, and now big oil, there is no shortage of examples to support a message of good “right-sized” government — with a role for the federal government that protects the people from the fall-out of corporate greed and corruption. It would be a pleasure to see Democratic Party leaders, and the White House, stop making excuses for a federal government that has been neglecting its responsibility to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.


Jonathan Cykman, EzineArticles.com Basic PLUS Author

About cykman

Jon Cykman works in Washington, DC as a consultant, and is long-time student of American Politics. He started out handing out campaign materials for Hubert Humphrey during the campaign of 1968, and later went on to earn a B.A. in Political Science from the State University of New York, College at Purchase in 1978, and an M.A. in Public Affairs from the University of Texas, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs in 1980. Jon retired from Federal Service after 31 years of service, and lives with his family in Catonsville, MD.
This entry was posted in American Politics, Economic Policy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Politics of the Petroleum Economy (2)

  1. Shawn Bohinc says:

    This is one awesome blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  2. Great post. I am just starting my blog as well. Do you find it hard to have something to say, because I don’t feel like natural writer and it seems to come natural for you.

  3. Sorry to be off topic, but I like your posts and I wanted some feedback for my blog. I have a hard time writing, but I do want to share my experiences. Am I stuck between a rock and a hard place? Or should I just do it?

Leave a Reply