In energy policy, he's making it sound as if going backwards is a positive step, using campaign rhetoric to entrance. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
And since he said he wants green energy in the "all of the above" strategy, the portion of Democratic D's trying to fight the current drill baby drill platform (a minority of a minority) would find themselves standing on a foundation of sand.
Pushing the first hope for a serious energy policy back to 2015, under what I'd guess to be an unlikely series of unfortunate events, or else 2017.
Its great politics, since independents want "green energy jobs" so its a great wedge issue between R-affiliate voters and R-leaning voters, and the drill baby drill part does not give Republicans substantial purchase for their counter messaging, but its horrific policy. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
It's one thing to make the argument that a lot more needs to be done - but then one might have to consider the power structure and how change could be accomplished.
No one is claiming he hasn't also made some small but necessary steps. I don't know if the mercury standards have any teeth or not, perhaps it will make some difference, i don't know.
But he hasn't stopped coal leases, he hasn't stopped mountain top removal, and the EPA still has not teeth.
And of course windpower was a recipient of the renewable portion of the stimulus, which helped the industry from completely stopping after 2009, when it only dropped 50% in new capacity, from 10 gigs to 5+ gigs. That windpower in the US returned to 9 gigs this year is only because the industry cut margins to zero or minus. That means not just Vestas, but GE and Siemens as well as the second tier companies.
You may well wish to find strength in that Obama has done some things, which he has. But that's in the context you might not be seeing the intensity of the problem.
And that windpower in the US was finally reestablished under Bush, first in Texas and then in the nation. Bush may be an unpunished war criminal (i won't get into Obama's decision not to resurrect the rule of law), but no renewable policies were effected by Obama any stronger than occurred under the oil president.
and the Gulf disaster changed things how? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
What do you base that on? Do you think people are clamoring to stop coal leases? And not only that, clamoring enough to overcome support from coal state interest? Even supposed "progressive" allies of Obama will step on him on that issue- for example Sherrod Brown of Ohio tried to pull authority to regulate coal dust from the EPA. My progressive friends keep describing an American popular revolt to me that I have not seen evident at all.
The public is generally in favor of environmental measures but dubious on specifics and nowhere near a state to overcome entrenched interests.
Of course the mercury standards have teeth http://www.edf.org/news/setting-record-straight-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards
and see
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pew-study-department-of-defense-accelerates-clean-energy-inn ovation-to-save-lives-money-130278133.html
etc.
Definitely not enough, but the line of argument that "Obama sux" does not appear to me to be a productive one.
says more about the current state of the neanderthal US. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
So please don't tell me Obama shouldn't have fought for what the people want. He's like Goldman Sachs, strong on renewables and 4x as strong on conventional poison.
Try getting out of the closed circle of politics, and make judgements on what your grandchildren are going to judge.
Had he provided enough vision, he would have held the lower house in 2010. Had he said strongly that global warming was real, the game would have been changed.
We are in a time when calculating politics has nothing to do with the actual situation civilization finds itself. All actions which affect other people must be judged within that context, NOT with what compromise might be acceptable. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
strong favor mild favor mild no strong no
45 24 15 16 -
"Which is more important to you as you think about increasing drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas around the United States? The need for the U.S. to provide its own sources of energy. The need to protect the environment." Options rotated
provide own protect env
52 45
And, obviously, general national impressions do not always translate into public pressure.
In other words, its easy for you to say that all Obama had to to was understand the urgency of the problem and order Congress to pass laws that their financial sponsors don't like - including what's left of the union movement - but just saying it doesn't make it true.
The environmentalists, like myself, have not succeeded in creating a powerful public demand. The results follow.
Leaders create demand.
Don't get me wrong, i voted for him, or would have, had the voters abroad website not been a nightmare. And I would vote for him again, unless there was a Green candidate with a modicum of sense.
And also understand, i know the game. I've testified in congress, and been invited twice to the white house privately. i played a role in getting the DoD take renewables seriously, because my best friend growing up became the lawyer for the Senate armed whatever concummittee.
I'm not saying he's done badly, especially considering the circumstances. I'm saying he hasn't done what needs to be done.
What i asked of you was to stop a moment, get out of the politics, and think about what actually needs to be done.
He had the chance to rise above the politics, and didn't. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
During Obama's State of the Union speech, Democracy Corps ran a dial-test focus group. Fifty swing voters were given devices that let them register approval or disapproval continuously throughout the speech. Two results in particular are worth highlighting. Overall, there was a striking degree of unanimity, quite in contrast to the polarization in Washington. Reactions to the speech split along party lines on only a few issues. The most interesting split came during the section of the speech on energy: This section received the highest sustained ratings of the speech from Democrats and independents, but it was also one of the few polarizing sections as Republicans reacted negatively to the President's call for more support of clean energy (independents, like Democrats, responded very favorably). Overall, Obama gained 22 points on the issue, one of his biggest gains on the evening, as these voters endorsed his appeal to end subsidies for oil companies and instead focus those resources on expanding clean energy in America. [my emphasis] It seems the Republican attempt to drag clean energy into the culture war has reached only the conservative base. Independents outside the Fox-Limbaugh loop still favor it. In other words, this is a powerful wedge issue that favors Democrats.
During Obama's State of the Union speech, Democracy Corps ran a dial-test focus group. Fifty swing voters were given devices that let them register approval or disapproval continuously throughout the speech. Two results in particular are worth highlighting.
Overall, there was a striking degree of unanimity, quite in contrast to the polarization in Washington. Reactions to the speech split along party lines on only a few issues. The most interesting split came during the section of the speech on energy:
This section received the highest sustained ratings of the speech from Democrats and independents, but it was also one of the few polarizing sections as Republicans reacted negatively to the President's call for more support of clean energy (independents, like Democrats, responded very favorably). Overall, Obama gained 22 points on the issue, one of his biggest gains on the evening, as these voters endorsed his appeal to end subsidies for oil companies and instead focus those resources on expanding clean energy in America. [my emphasis]
It seems the Republican attempt to drag clean energy into the culture war has reached only the conservative base. Independents outside the Fox-Limbaugh loop still favor it.
In other words, this is a powerful wedge issue that favors Democrats.
The mercury standards are a regulatory action, and entirely compatible with drill baby drill.
Its considering the power structure and how change could be accomplished that reveals that the "all of the above" strategy sounds far more impressive than it is in the reality of today's Congress. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
It's the attitude that made America's New Left the best friend the far right ever had.
Still punching hippies, after all these years?
What's next, Alinsky?
America isn't Russia in 1917 or China in 1946, and any violent head-on collision with the power structure will only ensure the mass suicide of the left and the probable triumph of domestic fascism. So you're not going to get instant nirvana -- or any nirvana, for that matter -- and you've got to ask yourself, "Short of that, what the hell can I do?" The only answer is to build up local power bases that can merge into a national power movement that will ultimately realize your goals. That takes time and hard work and all the tedium connected with hard work, which turns off a lot of today's rhetorical radicals
Saul Alinsky.
Generally speaking I don't think it is productive to transfer your old flame-wars to this blog.
And since you seem to reasonably informed that the New Left was, you should admit that your sparring partners in these flame war, the "magic ponic progressives" have nothing to do with the New Left of yesteryear.
And I disagree entirely. The underlying class structure and ideological approach of the "New Left" and the "magic pony progressives" is very similar.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4251/you_say_you_want_a_revolution/
And that is simply nonsense. "Obots" and "firebaggers" have exactly the same academic middle-class class-structure. And ideologically we are talking about a squabbling among two reformist center-left factions.
If I understand you correct, you see Obama as an effective and consistent politician within the tight restrains created by the current state of the political system. But as an effective politician, did he not run a very effective campaign back in 2008 that primarily convinced people to vote for him not through policy items but through a vague but inspiring message of Hope and Change? Did this not enthusiase people as they projected their own hopes for change on his campaign?
And within the tight restrains of the current system, he naturally must make a lot of those who projected disappointed because he will not be their saviour. So is not they expressing that disappointment the natural consequence of choices taken by this effective politician in both campaign and in office? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
For the second, deriding accomplishments of an incremental process is morally acceptable, at least to me, only from those who have some alternative to propose. The argument that it's all a fake and hopeless is an argument for the success of the far right.
