American Politics: Ruled By ‘Emptiness’
TMV NOTE: This post ran yesterday and generated a lot of comments. Due to its subject matter, we’re running it again on today’s blog and it is presented here out of chronological order. Newer posts are underneath it, so please keep scrolling after you read it.
For a while now I, being Dutch, have been amazed by the emptiness of American politics. To me, it seems as if most debates are not about what one favors but about what one does not favor. Be it either individuals or parties.
An example of this is the tone of political advertisements. A while ago, I wrote a post called It’s All About Negativity. From that post:
When I look at the campaign tactics used in America, I am often struck by the low grade personal attacks used, the hatred, the fear, the bitterness, the list goes on and on. It truly is incredible. There seems to be but one kind of strategy: make everything look as negative as possible. Don’t focus on your own, positive plans / ideas, focus on how much of an incompetent jerk your opponent is.
In it I linked to this article at the New York Times. An interesting fact noted in that article is that 90% of all political advertisements this election year are expected to be negative.
Yesterday, Joe Gandelman pointed out that it’s not just ads that are negative, no, even former Presidents are guilty of not saying anything substantive: Bush 41 was quoted as saying:
“I would hate to think what Arlen’s life would be like, what Rick’s life would be like, and what my son’s life would be like if we lose control of the Congress. If we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country.”“They’d be pushing through all kinds of crazy legislation and they would be issuing the subpoenas, dragging people in just to be getting headlines.”
It’s not just political leaders / parties as such that use these strategies though: ‘John Doe’ uses them as well: in comment sections of just about every blog, including this one, people who will vote Democrat are telling other people that they should vote Democrat as well, because if they vote for a Republican candidate, they will simply be empowering Bush to draw more power to himself, &c., &c.
Also yesterday, the AP published an article about Nancy Pelosi’s 100 hours slogans. This is less negative than the examples mentioned above, but it, again, lacks any possible substance. I have made clear what I think about it in the comment section of the post about Bush 41 and in the post about David Cameron, so I will keep it short here: she just combined some nice ads (probably the other 10%) and put them into one. For more, just look here, here, here, here, here and here.
And there are many, many more examples. The ‘stay the course’ crowd for instance, led by US President George W. Bush. No real plan, nope, just… ‘stay the course’. ‘We’ve got to hang in there because if we don’t‘, &c.
What do these examples all share? A complete lack of substance. There is nothing of value in them. It are all empty phrases, either used to prevent one from voting for the other side (strictly anti-vote) or to make headlines (for instance the 100 hours ‘plan’).
Is this what all of you want to base your votes on? On exactly nothing? Is the only thing you all care about what the other side might do if they come into a position of power (and perhaps combined with some empty, nothing-explaining slogans being portrayed as if they are, somehow, substantive)? Is that all it takes to get your vote?
What do the respective parties plan on doing once they are in power, except for not doing what the other party might do?
Isn’t that far more important than all the crappy anti-ads? Isn’t that far more important to know, than why you should not vote for a specific party? What do both parties think about the economy? How do they plan on stimulating it? What will the results of this be? How will this influence the every day life of Americans?
What do they plan on doing regarding health care? Do they want to privatize it more, keep it as it is, more government? If they favor a change, how much will it cost and again how will that affect the lives of Americans? Will it also influence other areas? If so, how far?
What do they plan on doing regarding the environment? What will it cost? How will, if they plan on improving the environment, possible plans actually improve the environment? Will it be lasting? Will the costs be structural?
Alternative energy?
Will they encourage entrepreneurship? If so, how? And if that question is answered, give numbers, give facts. What will the results be?
Just a short example: because the first year is the most difficult year to get through for every new enterprise, I would advocate that new businesses will not have to pay any taxes the first year of their existence: just to get through that first, rough and tough period. Now see, that’s a plan. One can either agree, or disagree with it, but at least it is a plan about a specific subject.
The main problem with the current political culture in the US is, as I see it, that one will cast an anti-vote and that, after a few months, one notices that the party one voted for because one strongly opposed the other, is adopting all kinds of policies one does not agree with: before one knows it, one comes to the conclusion that one only agrees with, say, 40% of the policies introduced / adopted by before mentioned party. That one does not agree with 60% of the policies.
And – the real irony is – that in the comment section of the post about Bush 41, it seemed that most commenters agreed with each other on that. That all the above are, indeed, major problems in the US. But you all are letting it to happen. Do you really think that the respective parties would use the tactics if they were not working? Of course not. And they are only working, because all of you allow them to work.
Even more, what the comment sections prove time and time again is that once a real, in-depth debate takes place, people come to understand the arguments of the other side and seem to be able to compromise. Or, if they are not able to compromise, they at least understand each other completely and feel sympathy for the other person’s views: the other is not crazy, dumb, blinded, etc. No.
However, that is how the political culture in the US has become: the opposing side cannot possibly have some good points: nope, the others are evil, lazy, greedy, fascist, communist, the list goes on and on and that is why one should not vote for them and, thus automatically one should vote for the other.
What I also noticed is the broad support for a viable third party. A new party, broadly supported. This, many argue, would solve the current political culture: it would be a wake-up call and it would simply force the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to stop you-know-what around and offer true plans, true ideas for the future of America.
I (generally) agree with that: the DP and the RP are fighting each other for so long, that they have now arrived at the point that they are not willing to provide Americans with plans: only with propaganda about what the other party might do.
They are fighting, but for what? Not for ideas, not for real plans. Well, at least not real plans and ideas they want to present to the American people that is.
The most effective and quickest way of creating a third party that might actually become powerful, is by pushing certain political leaders who do not agree with the current political climate either and / or don’t fall in the ‘mainstream’ of the political party they belong to (or, perhaps better said, don’t have the support of the most influential group(s) of the party they belong to), to break loose from it and join forces.
The key to it all, however, is the American people itself. Nothing will change if Americans themselves do not enforce it. The current political parties are satisfied with the status quo and why would they not? It’s working perfectly fine for them.
Another and most likely more realistic way (not difficult to achieve of course – the other is incredibly difficult to achieve) of transforming the current nothingness into substance, is by simply influencing both big parties directly. To start demanding more than what you all are getting now. To demand real plans. To demand real ideas. To demand real figures / numbers, etc.
Make clear that putting a few slogans together do not make a plan… Nothing will change unless the average American demands it. It is that simple.
PS
Let it be clear that every democracy in the world has its own problems. I am simply observing certain things and, because it was mentioned in the comment sections am trying to come up with possible ‘solutions’ for this particular problem. By no means am I trying to act as if my own country, for instance, is perfect.
85 Responses to “American Politics: Ruled By ‘Emptiness’”
CS- I get your point, but look generally at the trash on TV , and you could make the same point- that its market-generated, and that sex and violence sells. That doesn’t mean watching it isn’t feeding into our need for instant gratification, and constant titilation. Is that a good thing? If you think about the Golden Age of television, when live, original dramas aired, you might think our culture is becoming dumbed down. My opinion? Just because trash TV sells, doesn’t mean it should replace quality television. Likewise, just because 30 million listeners tune into Rush, doesn’t mean that voters will go to the polls truly informed about the issues.
I guess I’m just fearful of the day when corporate interests will determine what slant the news takes, and what stories we will hear about. To a certain extent, that is happening now. I am old enough to remember when an editorial was clearly labelled as opinion. The blurring of the lines between opinion and fact in today’s world serves noone.
I do take heart from the intelligent discussions on this site and others like it, but most voters never get to this point. They rely on the biased negative campaign ads , fake docudramas, and the manic shout-fests on the cable channels, where noone ever agrees on much of anything.
I think a lot of the problems with said lack of plans are that, when it comes down to it, we vote for individual candidates in the American system rather than political parties. The European system relies more on party, and those parties have to produce stances for their members to get elected, as far as I can tell.
Since you are voting for individuals at all levels in the winner-take-all system, there’s a lot more variance in individual opinions. The reaosn it’s tough for Democrats to articulate a policy is because there are a lot of constituencies in the Democratic Party, with many more schisms than in the GOP on certain types of issues.
I believe one word covers a lot of the ills in our current political environment–MONEY.
It’s expensive to break into the political system, and expensive to hang on. All manner of corruption follows from this.
Political campaigns are more attuned than they ever have been the techniques and values of hucksterism, or advertising if you prefer a nicer word. They have always been about propaganda, which isn’t something only Nazi’s or Commies use. Nowadays, sophisticated marketing analysis allows the hucksterism to maximize return in the form of votes for investment in the form of campaign communications, ads, slogans, and innuendos.
And we the people have been trained to respond in predictable ways to artfully crafted messages conveyed through mass media. Of course, I don’t mean we the commenters at TMV; we don’t really count for much in the calculations of political operators. The “we the people” really seems like “them.”
Elections are about how to play “them.” Polarize them, and they’re more easily played.
The USA is not that old a country, but we’re nearly the oldest democracy, and our democracy continues to evolve in the world of pervasive media and commerce. Corporations are winning the battle to shape and control the government to its own purposes.
Corporations, which (not who) pay for much of the lobbying and campaigning in politics and for the entertainment through our media don’t have much of an interest in a robust public debate of the issues, nor in an informed citizenry, nor in having everybody vote.
Corporations do have an abiding interest in securing, maintaining, and promoting an environment in which they can flourish, as indicated by quarterly earning statements. They aren’t immoral. They don’t need to be. They are, however, profoundly amoral. Moral doesn’t translate to the bottom line.
The ever-widening disparity of incomes between corporate high-flyers and the rest of us is testament to the success of corporations in working the system to their own advantage.
In the end, if you want to understand why politics in America is how it is these days, just ask yourself who benefits from a largely uninformed and apathetic electorate in which a large number of those who are engaged effectively cancel each other out. Even when the government isn’t doing something, it’s doing something, and you can count on the people who matter to know the score and make sure it comes out right.
Don’t underestimate fear. Everyone talked about polarization, money, and other factors, but fear is the driving force.
Americans are a jumpy people. We see people lurking in shadows. We justify debates based on the negative consequences of not taking our position. Polls have shown that fear is the biggest motivator in American politics. I’m not sure why this is. Maybe we’re raised this way. I think that our Puritanical origins have a lot to do with it. Early Americans were told that we were but spiders in the hands of an angry God.
This is the American way. There is a reason I think FDR’s “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” is one of the best lines in American history. He knew our danger and pointed towards the path out. Think of what this quote means – it means that we currently DO fear.
To expect politicans not to take advantage of this is to misunderstand politicans. Of course they will, and we won’t be able to prevent it as long as it works.
So the answer is not to fear. It would take a change in our national identify, an incredible task, but one that will cost us if we don’t undertake it.
jjc,
I’ve got to disagree with you on a large portion of what you believe. I think you correct on corporations wanting what’s best for them – that’s why they usually donate to the party that will benefit them. They also donate to the other side to hedge their bets. However large labor unions do the same thing – and for the same reasons. There is no more morality on the Union side than there is on the corporation side. Both are entities that want to not only continue existing but to expand and further their bottom line.
I agree that a large part of it is money – it’s insane for a politician to need to raise x number of thousands of dollars a week to stay competitive in the race – and it will undoubtably compromise a politician and their beliefs. No question.
But you totally discount the people, the voters who make the decisions. if the vast majority of voters were mindless sheep going to the booth than we wouldn’t be looking at a Democrat takeover of possibly both houses of Congress. Money can only push or pull the electorate so far – as there is money pushing or pulling the opposite direction as well.
I appreciate interested and Kevin H for taking the trouble to respond to my comments here.
As to Kevin H’s point about the bums on the other side, I am sympathetic. But, sadly, I think there is nothing you can do about the bums on the other side. The best you can do is try to keep your own house in order.
I’ve found the comments about the “Fairness Doctrine” interesting. It seems like an obviously good idea. I sometimes listen to talk radio. I always think someone who had equal access to the microphone could mop up the floor with Rush Limbaugh. Instead, unchallenged, he is able to present himself as “talent on loan from God”. Well, as a Republican once said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Limbaugh’s success in the marketplace, in and of itself, is meaningless. The market is completely amoral. Cigarettes are the perfectly designed consumer product–the only thing they do for you is make you need to buy more of them to relieve the addiction they give you. You purchase your own slow, painful death on the installment plan. Since big money is involved, someone will always be ready to make up some fanciful argument that your worst possible choice is great, or good, or at least valid. Or at least no worse than any other choice you could make.
Negativity.
Lack of substance.
What’s the underlying cause? Two-party system anyone?
It is only effective to use attack ads 90% of the time when voters are limited to two choices.
Think about how silly it would look if one candidate was continually attacking 10 others about how immoral, corrupt, etc. they all were, without offering any real substantive policies.
But this works like a charm if you only have to discredit one candidate.
Bob Heilig,
I completely agree with you about the connection between fear politics and the two party system. Someone else made this point in another thread recently, and I had never really thought of it before but once it was brought up, I now find it quite obvious. Not only would a multiple party system make it ridiculous to criticize all others as you point out, but also, in our current system, candidates find it much more useful to avoid defining themselves along positive lines becuase being strictly negative means that they can capture ALL of the votes that oppose the opponent. Take for example, the Iraq war. The Dems right now find it expedient to be mainly anti-Iraq war, to criticize Bush’s policy. But if they were to define a course that they propose to take to end the war, it would divide their base. They would have to risk alienating those who think we should pull all troops out immediately or the other main group of anti-Iraq War voters who feel we should create an exit plan that still leaves some possibility of timed withdrawal based on benchmarks of success in Iraq. By not defining a plan, they capture both groups who feel that some plan for withdrawal is better than an open-ended, stay the course plan.
If we had more than two viable parties, then the Dems would be forced to get behind one proposal or the other, because if they didn’t, then some of the other anti-incumbent parties would garner support from some of their constituents. If there were third party Congressional candidates currently campaigning against Republican incumbents right now, then these candidates might propose a comprehensive plan for gradual military withdrawal along with political pressure on Iraqi govt to fix the major problems of militias and violence, and reforming and bolstering the reconstruction process. Such a candidate would definitely earn my vote, and I believe many others too.
Kim,
No, I absolutely don’t think it’s a good thing. My point is that it occurs because people don’t take responsibility for the choices that we make. I don’t think the remedy is to go back to government regulations on what we watch or listen to (the “Fairness Doctrine”) To use your comparison to sex and violence in entertainment, would you want the government to regulate this by saying that every hour of R rated TV has to be balanced by an hour of something sappy and G rated, for example? I’m not happy with the current programming that we have, and would love to see more family friendly stuff, but I sure don’t think that governmental regulations are the remedy.
Why is it conservatives oppose governmental regulations at every turn? If we just turn to the market system , we could easily go back to the days of the robber barons, when working conditions were often fatally dangeroud, pollution was uncontrolled, child labor was accepted, and a 12-hour work day was the norm. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from the worst impulses of the worst people, and it should work to ensure basic fairness and safety in broadcasting, business , education and other arenas.
Look at what happened to the pipeline in Alaska, when the energy executives were allowed to write our energy policy-. As a result of deregulation, BP stopped monitoring the condition of the pipeline and allowed it to deteriorate to a dangerous condition. Those “whistleblowers” who complained were dealt with punitively. At the time of the discovery, gas was over 3$ a gallon, but that didn’t create any pressure for the company to act responsibly.
Another example- snack foods in our schools. What parent wants their child to spend their lunch money on fritos and donuts from school vending machines? We have a big problem in this country with childhood obesity, but today’s quick profits have taken precedence over tomorrows dollars spent on increased health care costs. But anti-regulation conservative activists want markets and free choice to determine whether your child can buy soda and snacks at lunch. It mystifies me.
Bravo C Stanley, what a great commentary on the need for a third party. There have been many good comments made on how a third party would only act as a spoiler but I am now thinking that by starting small, perhaps with suburban house districts, a viable party could start up.
Grognard I agree with your opinion on C.Stanley her post, thanks Kim for that compliment and… what do you all say, almost time for a purely 3rd party thread?
Kim:
BP had no pressure to act responsibly in maintaining their lines? What about the millions/billions in profits lost each day while the line was down?
If there were third party Congressional candidates currently campaigning against Republican incumbents might propose a comprehensive plan for gradual military withdrawal along withright now, then these candidates political pressure on Iraqi govt to fix the major problems of militias and violence, and reforming and bolstering the reconstruction process. Such a candidate would definitely earn my vote, and I believe many others too
CS- I believe that is what is going to have to be the Republican Party’s position anyway. If you look Sen Warner’s statement on Iraq from last week, it foreshadows the Baker report. Both give the Iraqi government 3 months to get it together before calling for a change in strategy— which I read as timed withdrawels. Bush can’t come out and say that or he will look like a flip-flopper after his “stay the course”, not leaving until “the job is done” meme. They are finally coming around to what the Democrats have been saying all along—and being excoriated as cutting and running!
Kim,
While I do believe some conservatives (ahem, Liberatarians) are knee jerk in their opposition to governmental regulations, I try to avoid that type of thinking. However, I do believe that before we look to the government, we should always try to see if there are other remedies for problems, because generally I see far more problems created by govt regulations than solutions to problems. What I’m trying to say is that I’m not against all regulation per se, but I do think the burden of proof needs to be on showing that the regulations will solve more problems than they create. I don’t see liberals applying that logic, which is why I tend to disagree with liberal philosophy.
Thanks for the compliments, grognard and MvdG, on my third party comment. MvdG, I’d love to see a thread on the third party concept. I’ve been thinking a lot about what platform would garner the most support from both sides of the aisle, what would capture the centrist viewpoints on various issues, and I’d like to see how my thoughts compare to others here.
C.S.: you can always write them down and e-mail them to me. I can give an opinion about it, but as always I am just a foreign observer: I do not know in how far my views might be applicable in America since… well… the culture is quite different.
I only mentioned it because I thought you previously suggested that it might be time for a new discussion thread about the third party possibility, MvdG (or at least I thought that is what you meant). It’s up to you, of course, if you think it’s a worthy discussion. I find it interesting personally to think on it because my views really aren’t very centrist but I find it challenging to determine how far I would go toward compromise, in order to have the best chance at political success (ie, the platform of my ideal party would have to have a chance at garnering enough popular support), without watering down my ideals too much. I think it would be interesting to see if people with more of a left perspective would also be willing to move toward the center in order to create a more viable alternative to our current choices.
I agree with Chris Bell’s comment that fear has a lot to do with how our politics works these days. I’d say exploitation of fear is the preferred modus operandi of entrenched polticians, political operators, and their patrons in the corporate world.
interested:
A significant plurality of mindless sheep is more than enough for the entire electorate to be manipulable by sharp campaign tactics–no vast majority requried. And even now, when the tide of bad news for the GOP has reached a peak, the takeover by Dems is not seen as a sure thing.
You point to unions as a countervailing force to corporations. Would you deny that corporations have steadily increased their hold of the upper hand with the overall decline of manufacturing business in America? And along with that we’ve seen a steady increase of income disparity?
My dad was a Chamber of Commerce type, so I grew up opposed to unions. I think I understand the mentality, and God knows American unions have much not to be proud of. It’s easy to forget or not know in the first place that corporations responded to the beginning of unionism by having people killed, and that unions began under conditions decribed by Kim Ritter above.
The GOP has personal responsibility as a mantra which may be the problem with unions as an idea, but Dems believe also in responsibility with different framing. Small businesses might fit under the rubric of personal responsibility, but corporations just plain don’t. Corporate responsibility is an utter fiction, except where shareholders are concerned.
If and when Dems ever get a party identity back, I hope they do so on the basis of re-asserting the kind of responsibility that comes from recognizing that ultimately we’re all in the same boat. Politics shouldn’t be about denying communal responsibiltiy in the name of personal responsibility. I’m hoping we can move in the direction of some kind of synthesis of personal and communal responsibilty. (If a third party can do this, then maybe that’s the way to go, but very powerful entrenched interests are in the way.)
Meanwhile, I think Americans are coming to believe increasingly that the game is rigged, and that leads to a decay in the idea of responsibility in all its forms. Ignorance and apathy seem to be on the rise, and in that environment cynicism and chicanery ultimately triumph.
Your not that correct jjc. I see what your trying to say and to a point we agree, but your discounting voters.
Certainly Unions provided a vital point in our history – it doesn’t however make them any more moral than corporations. In Laconia NH I fueled up a G3 that belonged to the Teamsters Union all the time – they’re one request was to not photograph the tailnumbers – so union members wouldn’t trace back just where their funds are going.
Doner list
The vast top portion of doners is unions – and they vastly support Democrats.
Plus to go along with your theory it’s mean to say that Corporations are wanting one particular party. In fact click the % link and you can see that while Unions kept supporting Dem’s – Corporations shifted towards both parties on a more equal basis – certainly a ton more equal than unions do.
George W. Bush (R) $367,228,801
John Kerry (D) $328,479,245
That’s pretty darn close and probably the closest dem’s ever got to matching repub’s campaign donations for a president. Going off of your theory it’d be pretty equal messages on both sides.
However where unions are the largest givers – it doesn’t compute. You are correct that the spending is immense to get over their particular message that they want to convey – but it’s not all corporate based message.
Chris Bell,
In the viewpoint of a BP manager running a pig through the lines is something that definitely reduces the flow of oil and makes his numbers look bad. His boss never asks why there wasn’t the reduction that would have been there if he’d taken the time to do what he was supposed to do. More oil flowing makes him look good. A pipeline bursting or developing a serious leak might happen. Reality is that no testing and maintenance means it will definitely happen but lots of managers don’t think that way.
Jim S:
Sure, that’s right. But that only means that BP had conflicting internal pressures. Kim was arguing that BP had no reason not to act this way (and I guess that we should regulate BP to prevent this from happening again). That’s silly. The huge loss of the failed pipe gives BP plenty of pressure to fix this internal management problem. If BP doesn’t, it will continue to pay for it in the future when other lines go down.
Chris Bell- The corrosion problem was discovered as a result sof government regulation After a large oil spill occured in Northern Alaska, the Federal government inspected the pipeline and found the problems. The corrosion problems occurred as a result of cost-cutting by BP, which is now under criminal investigation due to its negligence. So even if it was obviously in BP’s best interest to maintain the pipeline, they failed to do so.
CS- I may be a left-leaning moderate, but I agree with you that regulation should not be put in place unless it can be enforced, and only regulation that is effective in problem-solving should be enacted. I DO feel, however, that existing regulations would work if enforced properly. Often that doesn’t occur because of cost-cutting or political influence. One example of this would be our regulation of illegal aliens. We have plenty of regulations already on the books but they are ignored so that influential employers can have access to cheap labor.
interested, campaign financing is only one piece of the puzzle of how corporate interests influence the government, although I think it’s worth noting that the GOP still leads overall.
For one thing, Dems are contaminated also. Joe Lieberman, for example, is a trusted friend of Big Pharma and very favorable towards defense contractors, both of which are important contributors. Since I support the Dems, you might have thought I was making the case that they’re innocent of something of which the GOP is guilty. Not so. I wouldn’t mind in the least seeing Dems that are in anyone’s pockets get the boot.
For another, corporations are interested in legislation affecting their corporate interests. Unions are interested in minimum wage and other such safety net legislation. You might not support the programs they do, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that unions have the tightly focussed interests that corporations do.
Unions are not about making rich people richer, although the fact that they have wealth attracts the unsavory sort. I certainly don’t mean to make light of unions’ corruption problems, but I would say those problems help make my point. Could well be they’re a reason unions are weaker these days.
Simply put, money corrupts much as power does, and more so when it’s concentrated and consolidated. It produces politicians like George W. Bush, who is nothing if not a vessel of corporate interests. He’s an extreme example, but you might want to consider what it means that he was able to win reelection, even after we’d had ample opportunity to see what the man is all about.
The Executive branch of government is full of unqualified office holders in a way it never has been, but perhaps will be from now on. And we all know about the Legislative branch, where the rot may recede for a while before regaining strength.
Arguably, we are as a people no more ignorant or apathetic than we’ve ever been. But we are at a apoint now where it has become and will increasingly become our undoing.
jjc,
I’m not able to hold water with what your saying. Sure companies have an interest for their party to be in office, so don’t Unions. However in order for a corporation or union to effect legislation they have to have the party or people of their choice be elected. Unions are no different from any other organization that has the desire to remain. And they’ve shown to be as unethical as any other entity with large amounts of money.
As such while they give huge sums to Democrats, Companies give huge sums to Repubs – However as proved, Unions have not hedged their bets so to speak, while corporations have increasingly hedged their bets to – in some cases an equal amount. So they’re covered no matter who’s in office.
So once they’re in office – sure they could influence somewhat one way or another, lobbyists, etc. – but you’ve got to get the person in office to begin with – or stay in office.
Kim:
Two things, (1) I’m sure BP would have noticed their leaky pipe when the output started not to match the input. (Maybe at the end of the month when they balanced their books)
(2) You correctly point out that BP failed to act in its own interest. Sure. So? This is NOT a sufficient argument for regulation. People screw up all the time. In order to justify regulation, you must show that the penalties aren’t falling on the people who screw up. (Thereby imposing market discipline) BP screwed up, BP will pay for it.
If you have government regulation you will pass a law penalizing BP for screwing up. That’s what you already have! (Except now you’ve unnecessarily involved the government with all the costs that come along with that.)
If you’d like to continue this over email, I would be happy to. It’s kind of off-topic.
Chris- I think that when a resource is as important as energy, oversight is necessary. Oil isn’t like other commodities that we could easily live without-our entire economy depends on it. Also at the moment, it is a national security issue, as we have involved our country in a volatile region to ensure a steady supply. That’s why I think federal oversight is necessary.
Kim:
As to the national security argument, maybe so, but I would disagree. We have a competitive environment with five major oil companies. But that aside, my point is that your original argument doesn’t work.
“Government has a duty to protect its citizens from the worst impulses of the worst people, and it should work to ensure basic fairness and safety in broadcasting, business , education and other arenas. Look at what happened to the pipeline in Alaska, when the energy executives were allowed to write our energy policy-. As a result of deregulation, BP stopped monitoring the condition of the pipeline and allowed it to deteriorate to a dangerous condition. Those “whistleblowers” who complained were dealt with punitively. At the time of the discovery, gas was over 3$ a gallon, but that didn’t create any pressure for the company to act responsibly.”
Chris -We’ll have to agree to disagree- I don’t agree that we have a competitive environment. There’s plenty of evidence of price fixing at the highest levels between the 5 big corporations. Its to their advantage to keep production and refinery at a minimum to keep prices high.
If BP was so worried about its stockholders, why not maintain the pipeline? Why the cost cutting?
interested, the argument about whether unions are as corrupt and/or corrupting as corporations is a side issue as far as I’m concerned.
The primary issue for me is that politicians–whether GOP or Dem–are increasingly the agent of those who finance and otherwise influence them rather than of the general public or even of their constituents.
So we immediately have politicians whose public spiritedness is largely a matter of expediency and often a pretence, which has always been the case but is increasingly so as the money players learn to game the system ever more effectively.
Part of gaming the system is to promote polarization in the public, because it’s been seen to be effective when you can get 50% on your side–effective meaning that application of resources achieves the desired result.
It’s not really necessary that any politician does this deliberately–many are just doing what comes naturally. And that’s really the point–promoting an environment where no special cynicism is required to produce the result the cynics want. If the system rewards cynicism, whether calculated or not, those who behave cynically will be attracted and a positive feedback loop will have been achieved.
Kim:
You’re right. BP must not have lost any money from the incident and will learn no lesson from it. My mistake. I had thought that the $1.2 million environmental fine and the $24 million lost in production would punish BP, but they must simply be able to harvest this money back from their money trees, no harm done.
Ahh, but it didn’t really harm them that much. Part of the reason that oil prices jumped up so much was due to the lack of oil flowing in the Alaska pipeline. BP at that point was getting more money for less oil and still has the oil to sell later at a somewhat higher price. In effect, they have delayed a profit, not lost a profit–and with the higher prices it actually benefits BP in the long run. The money that BP “lost” is minimal when you look at their overall structure and a 1.2 million fine is barely a drop in the bucket. If I were fined the equivalent of approximately two day’s pay for totally ignoring regulations I’d think I got off lucky.
Kim:
Ah yes, the old “Let’s stop producing our product in order to make more money trick.” No economic analysis. No computation of how high the price of oil would have to jump to make the loss of $28.8 million/day worth it. (400,000 barrels per day in the pipeline @ the then price of $72/bbl)
Hey, if BP is smart then maybe they will listen to you and keep letting their lines fail in order to choke off supply and make more money. At 90% production they could make millions, at 50% billions, and maybe if they didn’t produce at all they could make an infinite amount of money!
Better go get me some BP stock….
To bad for poor BP that other companies started to produce more. Not only that, but BP released its own reserves! What were they thinking? Prices were back below the pre-pipeline failure level within a week.
Oops, Katie, not Kim
Another reason why there’s so much negative ads is because negative ads are easier to make.
It is much harder for an ad director to look for dirt on his candidates opponent than it is to creatively highlight his candidate’s strengths without being cheesy.
The problem may be that the people producing political ads just don’t take the time to make good ads or find the necessary talent.