Chutzpah is blaming the the BP oil spill on the federal government after years of insisting with equal vigor that government should not interfere with business, especially the big ones involving national security - like oil companies.
Both Left, Right and Center share responsibility for this and other crises of our time. De-regulation began in the 1970's with Jimmy Carter, accelerated under Reagan, and was embraced by Clinton, who declared that the era of big government was over.
There is grumbling on the Left because Obama's style doesn't permit him to rant and rave. He has not threatened to nationalize the oil, auto, coal, financial, or insurance industry as much as his supporters would wish him to do it. This is the same Left that called Bush an immature cowboy for his ravings about terrorism and macho threats that alienated our allies and independent nations.
The Right also blames Obama for the recession, for bailing out companies whose failure would have destroyed our economy for fifty years rather than the time it will take to dig out of the mess they left for him.
The Right laid the groundwork for the worst epidemic of corporate incompetence and greed since 1929. From Exxon to Enron to Goldman Sachs, from General Motors to Toyota, from coal mines to oil rigs, big government cannot compete with big business for gross negligence, fraud, or greed.
Bush / Cheney produced an era of incompetent and corrupt government that challenged the Harding administration of the early 1920's - which also permitted big oil interests to buy the government. In Afghanistan and Iraq, in New Orleans, in Texas, on the coastlines, on Wall Street, government policies resulted in disaster.
Every crisis Obama has had to deal with for the past year and a half has had roots deep in the past. The truth is that there was nothing more he could have done in the time he had to forestall or even mitigate the damage.
Calls for kicking ass are like cries to shoot first and ask questions later. It is akin to the traditional witch hunts and scapegoating that accompanies every crisis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Every crisis Obama has had to deal with for the past year and a half has had roots deep in the past. The truth is that there was nothing more he could have done in the time he had to forestall or even mitigate the damage." - So true. And the fact that he doesn't show emotions (including anger) doesn't mean that he doesn't have them. But public opinion is often founded on the superficial, the appearances, the expectations of instant gratification, and not on the essence. This is where the media has a chance (and the power!) to say something profound, to recount some history, and what has led to the current situation, but, instead, it caters to what the so called public wants to hear. At the same time, those who understand the problem in-depth are part of the "public," too, aren't they? So why is the voice of mediocrity given a loudspeaker? I know, these questions are rhetorical.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your rhetorical Q about the media's failure to assist rather than exacerbate crises lies in the sad fact that sex and sensation sells. Period. In depth analysis to explore the truth won't happen. Pandering to the prejudice and ignorance of audience is all that matters in commerce.
ReplyDeleteObama is now faced with two terrible crises, neither of which he created. But he will be judged based on his response to these crises, even though he cannot satisfy the unreasonable expectations of the media and public.
ReplyDelete"Pandering to the prejudice and ignorance of audience is all that matters in commerce." Is that what the US media has always been about? I have trouble believing it. What about the right to free speech? Has it been sold? No one told us about that. When did it happen? Where do people get the real news? If not in this country, where?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of what Obama faces. But how about the media explaining this to the public and asking it not to cast the blame where it doesn't belong? I am not putting Obama on a pedestal, even though I voted for him, but I don't want his destruction either, it serves no good purpose. He's only human, he needs validation and support. If one is perpetually in the defensive mode (having to defend oneself - as you, Mort, once told me, you felt you had to do constantly), then this mode doesn't let one be fully who one can be! It's a survival mode. It creates the illusion of protection, because, while not letting the attackers get through, one is also preventing all the good people from getting through the gates of self-protection. There is no motion, no dynamics in that stance - only the desire to preserve the status quo. And we were hoping for a change coming from our new president.
Obama's call for "change" never appealed to me. I remember Clinton using the same word and realizing that, like "beauty" it is in the eye of the beholder, susceptible of too many interpretations to be credited. Obama has so far been checkmated by forces of reaction on almost every front, including now, Afghanistan. I have little expectation of good outcomes. But that's me.
ReplyDelete