A President with a Great Future behind Him

It is approaching the certainty of a physical law that the number of words the President speaks on behalf of any policy he favors is inversely proportional to public support for that policy. That was amply demonstrated during the healthcare reform debate, and it will be confirmed, I think, by the President's speech tonight on the Deepwater oil spill.

I didn't think the speech was all that bad, taken as a piece of rhetoric; but rhetoric is important only in some context, and there the President seems to have failed badly. He gave the speech because the oil spill has clearly damaged his office at a moment of peril for his party. He needed to rally his base and reassure the rest of America that he is a competent chief executive. It is evident that he failed at both tasks.

One piece of evidence is that the kindest assessment of the speech came from Charles Krauthammer, who has risen to the status of super-pundit by his clever and relentless criticisms of Obama. You can hear Krauthammer's remarks at this link, from Real Clear Politics. Krauthammer was pretty gentle in reviewing the President's remarks, but pointed out that no speech, however eloquent, can overcome the reality in the Gulf. That was fair enough.

By contrast, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews tore Mr. Obama a new asshole. Pardon my crude remark, but I don't see any other way to accurately describe their reaction to the speech. You can view their remarks at Real Clear Politics. In his opening comments, Olbermann said this:

It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.

It got better after that. Olbermann and Matthews and Howard Fineman accused the President of saying nothing specific, of having no direction, of not acting like a Commander in Chief. Olbermann said "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

It was Chris Matthews, amazingly enough, who said the most interesting thing.

[The President] said we had to accelerate this thing, accelerate the transition to renewables. That's the hardest thing in the world. That's what broke Jimmy Carter. That's what Ronald Reagan took a bye on completely. Bill Clinton didn't deal with it. It's the hardest thing in the world. He's saying I'm going to do it and then no more information.

Matthews is right of course, though it is startling to hear it from him. It is all well and good to invest in "green" energy for the future. For now it is a money pit. It consumes wealth and jobs and probably increases the damage to the environment from total energy production. For the foreseeable future we are stuck with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power as major sources of energy. You can't have a rational energy policy without facing that fact, and the President can't face that fact.

If the President can't win over MSNBC, who can he win over? I think the President's speech was a mistake, but it is clearly a mistake that he can't help repeating. Without faith in his person, what is there to his Presidency? It's true, as Olbermann and Mathews complain, that the President said very little that was specific, and said a lot about what we should do and nothing about how. They don't tell us what he should have said.

There was one passage in the President's speech that seemed to me to be unintentionally revealing.

The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.

Now consider that that passage was produced by a gaggle of professional speech writers working up to the last minute. It amounts to self-refutation. In World War II, and in the Apollo program, we knew exactly what "destiny" was supposed to look like. It was supposed to look like the defeat of Germany and Japan, and a man standing next to an American on the moon. Obama wants us to shape our destiny without having any idea what it supposed to look like. Way to rally the troops, Barry.

ps.  I note that the image above, captured from the White House Official website, is labeled hero_oval.bp.  Hero?  The rest of the Obama images are similarly labeled.  Okay, I am ready to say it.  There is something wrong with these people. 

Comments

[Donald Pay]

Alternative energy is "a money pit?" With geniuses like you we can count this being the Chinese century.

[KB]

Donald: what a clever comeback. I am surprised you don't go into politics, or perhaps comedy. Name one form of "alternative energy" that does not rely on heavy government subsides to be economically viable. It doesn't take a genius to see what that means, just a person of average intelligence.

[Donald Pay]

I'd argue that Obama is far, far closer to your position than mine. He, after all, wants to expand offshore oil drilling and nuclear power, using all sorts of federal subsidies and externalities (His cap and trade plan has far too many loopholes). I want to not only ban offshore oil, coal plants and nuclear plants in the future, but shut them down at the same rate that we stand up alternative energy. I'd strip every single subsidy to fossil fuel and nuclear (including defense expenditures, and liability limits) and provide that money for a WWII-style effort to expand alternate sources---a job creator by the way, and something that would turn South Dakota wealthy.

[William]

Actually Donald, that would turn South Dakota Amish...

Our modern society requires power (lots of it) and it requires it as cheaply as it can be produced. When alternative types of energy production are cost efficient, they will be used. Throwing money into a "WWII effort to expand alternate sources" is fruitless, as government can't dictate new scientific discoveries, if it could we'd have cures for cancer, Alzheimers and diabetes.

Energy is a global market and unilaterally "disarming" ourselves from the market simply creates an even greater dependence on foreign sources.

Your plans would result in our having to measure the horsepower of our transportation in literal horses.

[BillW]

In Donald's comment we can see the fundamental problem with the left wing of the Democrats - complete ignorance of fundamental economics. Donald and his lefty friends see the American economy as a grand goose laying unlimited golden eggs that can be raided, assaulted and ravaged to fund everything and anythng that crosses their mind - with no thought to the consequences, no clue as to how the money got there in the first place, and absolutely no sense of responsibility for growing - or even sustaining - the American economy.

"I want to not only ban offshore oil, coal plants and nuclear plants in the future, but shut them down at the same rate that we stand up alternative energy. I'd strip every single subsidy to fossil fuel and nuclear (including defense expenditures, and liability limits) and provide that money for a WWII-style effort to expand alternate sources."

That statement alone, Donald, would get you an F in Economics 101 on even the most liberal college campus.

Why, Doanld, is nuclear power on your list of bad things? It strikes me as just a hangover from inane 60's thinking with no basis in science, economics or logic. Is there a plan to do something once you have drydocked the entire submarine and carrier force - or will the foreign policy under Donald's rule be based on "give peace a chance"?.

[Donald Pay]

You betcha I'd unhook us from the global energy market as fast as I could. The faster we unhook the more we are in control of our own destiny, and we can't be played by Saudi Arabia, China, Russia or BP, Exxon and Chevron, or the hedge funds that manipulate the energy market. The people raiding the economy aren't leftists, they are the people who fund the Republican Party.

[BillW]

And the Democratic Party is building the economy ... how exactly? All I see is an extraordinary talent for spending other people's money, and a President who has taken the art of spending without creating wealth to levels never before thought possible.

[William]

Donald,

If we "unhook from the global energy market", the 21st Century will bear a remarkable resemblance to the 19th, as far as the American economy, lifestyle, industry, transportation, military and agriculture are concerned. At least until some other county decides such a third world nation is ripe for conquest.

“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.” - WFB jr

[Donald Pay]

William,

Your energy solutions are 19th and 20th Century. We live in the 21st Century, where the negative impacts of your energy solutions are pretty obvious. The times are a'changing, William. Try to keep up.

[William]

Donald,

My energy solutions actually work and support a technological society. Your solutions are largely unproven, high cost, impractical and at best, barely capable of sustaining the productivity required to maintain third world living standards.

Utopia doesn't exist Donald, it never will. No country will voluntarily agree to lower its living standards to the degree your dream requires. Its leaders would be hanging from lampposts before its citizens would accept it.

On "Earth Day" only one nation truly had "lights out" around the country, that was North Korea. That might not be the 21st Century you envision, but it's the 21st Century your proposals would bring us.

[KB]

Donald: You recommend stripping fossil fuel and nuclear energy production of all subsides. I am with you on that one. There are two reasons I can think of why we subsidize oil, coal, gas, and nukes. Other nations do it, and we think it would disadvantage our industries not to do it, and subsides give Congress more leverage over the industries that produce such power. I think such industries would be stronger rather than weaker without subsides.

You also recommend a WWII style effort to develop alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we are already spending at a WWIV level on everything else, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that one.

Since you didn't answer my question, let me ask it another way. Suppose we abolished all subsides for energy production. What would happen? Oil, coal, gas, nukes, and hydro-electric power would continue to be produced. That's because that's where the energy component of our national wealth comes from. Wind farms and solar energy projects would disappear over night. That's because those technologies are economically viable only if supported by massive government subsides. Nations that have invested heavily in wind, like Spain, Denmark, and Germany, have not seen gains in jobs or even a reduction in carbon emissions. Oh, and wind towers (I think they are beautiful) kill birds and bats, something that would deeply offend the left if wind power weren't pretty.

I am all for research on alternative energy. Maybe someday it will show returns. But right now green energy is a money pit, and cannot possibly produce a net gain in jobs nationally nor promote energy independence. It has exactly the opposite effect on both scores. Any rational energy policy has to face these facts.

[Donald Pay]

KB. Nonsense. Why is our military in the Middle East? Ninety percent of it is related to oil, as is the financing for the terrorists we are fighting. Not only are we subsidizing the global oil market by trying to stabilize the major producers, we are subsidizing the very people (terrorists) we are fighting. Make coal pay for its externalized costs, and it doesn't look so great as an energy source. Nuclear? I mean there's a huge federal bureaucracy involved in that industry, principally because it is extremely dangerous. Like big government and socialist enterprizes? Then you are right to support nuclear.