A Limited, Weak Govt Cannot Defend the Public Against Big Business
|
13 June 2010
It is absolutely appalling to hear Republicans complain about the government's response to the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico when not 2 minutes before the crisis they were warning about the perils of big government and whining that the nation will turn into a communist state. Even a government of our size is having a tough time responding to the repeated screw-ups of big business from the banking industry, to the insurance industry, to the oil industry. The conclusion drawn from such troubled times is that a limited, weaker government cannot defend its citizens against the perils of big business.
Unlike what the acidic tongue of Ronald Reagan proclaimed in the 80s, government is not the problem. A nation being choked by big businesses in every sector is what's causing our nation to flail around like brown pelicans caught in an enormous oil slick.
It's a perfect metaphor if not a giant tragedy that the Gulf of Mexico is awash in the greed of big business just as this nation and our government is awash in mediocrity. The problem of mediocrity, we all thought, was solved by the election of Barack Obama. But it appears the president has been dunked in a giant glob of muck where mediocre advice has caused him to do things in half-measures and to make ass-backwards decisions which are a little too cute by half; decisions like wanting to increase offshore drilling just weeks before the BP oil disaster.
This is a period of major change which requires a new way of thinking. Increasing the use of fossil fuels while at the same time proclaiming the need for renewable energy is unacceptable in this period of time. And, yes, it may require a government large enough to handle such a major shift.
However, if Republicans had their way and government were really as small and "unimposing" as they so wish it to be, the armageddon those scared Reps. are so afraid of would be right at our doorsteps. The sludge and muck which comes as a result of corrupt officials and non-existent regulation is always made worse by an ineffective government.
And who is supposed to fight back when businesses create a catastrophe beyond its control? To what do the people turn when they need something sufficiently big enough to hold big business accountable for its actions? Government. Those who have sought to gut the government and render it impotent to keep businesses in check cannot now complain that a gutted government hasn't the technology or the independent skillset to stop oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.
When the people who advocated shrinking government are the very same people who systematically dropped their responsibility for protecting the people, how dare complaints about the federal government's response pass from the mouths of those same people!
We are in a period of upheaval. Our way of existing on this earth seems to have reached a breaking point and allegedly infallible systems are being crushed one after another. We cannot depend on big business in it's current and various forms to be dependable and responsible to the American or international public. Change comes either by choice or by extreme force and we may have already crossed the point where its too late to change by choice.
If you want to get all Biblical, this disaster gives new meaning to interpretations of the Bible about how beasts will rise out of the seas. Only, this beast is not made of flesh, though it exhibits the uncontrollable behavior of one.
>Limited and Effective? Seriously?
Some seek to add 'effective' to the description of the type of limited government they want. Nobody's begging for a largER government, but the problem with the big vs small argument is that it's entirely too simplistic. Given our nation's current set of circumstances, a limited role for government cannot be an effective answer. Remember President Hoover? The very definition of limit means there is a point at which it won't be able to cross. That may sound good to a conservative, but it means that someone -- possibly a conservative -- will get to decide what that limit is.
At one point in this country's history, the 'limit' of the federal government stopped at a line on a map where those states above the line were "free" states and those states below the line were "slave" states. Limited government used to mean government's limit stopped at the diner owner's doorstep which made it okay for him to systematically discriminate against black people. It meant that the feds couldn't go down and tell southern governors, mayors, or sheriffs how to deal with their "niggras". I can guarantee you that black people weren't bi_ching about governmental intervention when their freedom was hanging in the balance or when their family members were being lynched.
Let's take it down a 1000: what limit should be placed on government's dealing with BP? How can a government be limited AND effective when trying to kick the asses of those who created this mess while simultaneously cleaning it up? Who decides how much the government can interfere in dealing with big oil?
In this nation we are currently powerless to stop this oil leak partially because of the laissez faire attitude previous administrations took with regard to big oil. Government was told by BP that they could handle a spill/blowout much bigger than this with no problem. And persons in charge of dealing with making sure a company like BP lived up to it's promises were, instead, in the hip pockets of big oil.
No, it is not feasible to claim that only a smaller, limited government can be effective enough to protect us and seek justice(vengeance?) when big business does something disastrous to its people.
>Do the right thing
Critics say that under former president George W. Bush, the role of government was reduced and regulations on businesses from every sector were severely weakened. This left the American public at the mercy of businesses, assuming that they would essentially do the right thing.
Conventional wisdom was that businesses would never be so careless as to cause a major catastrophe because each had a vested interest in keeping their stock price up and their shareholders happy. The problem with such an assessment IS that businesses have a vested interest in keeping their stock price up and their shareholders happy. Thus, they cut corners and take risks like you wouldn't believe in order to show an infinitely increasing profit.
Add this attitude on top of the belief that "government is the problem" and you have the makings of a disaster like the oil spill.
In my opinion, a weak government cannot effectively defend its citizens against the sociopathic tendencies of huge corporations like BP. I use 'sociopathic' because of the persistent lying, apparent lack of real remorse, expressions of irritability from BP's CEO (who wants his life back), recurring difficulties BP has had following the law, and a disregard for public safety they have apparently shown. Not to mention the cruelty to animals that is occurring as a result of their actions.
The callous lack of empathy, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, and failure to accept responsibility for its own actions by everybody who had a stake in this situation is not at all helped by the way each company is seeking to blame someone else for the oil disaster. In addition, the lack of preparedness to handle a crisis of this magnitude and the stupidity with which BP has sought to resolve the issue is unacceptable in its entirety.
> Mediocrity and irony at its finest?
Former lobbyist Mississippi governor Haley Barbour has downplayed this disaster and criticized the media for its reporting. Barbour seems more interested in everything else at the moment and, according to media reports, has twice skipped previous meetings with Obama about the oil crisis in favor of... whatever the hell he was doing instead. Barbour was a lobbyist for the tobacco industry (SourceWatch) and received over a million dollars in donations from the oil and gas companies for his campaign (ThinkProgress).
Barbour should pull his head out of... the ground ... or wherever it is. He compared animals covered in toxic goo to being covered in toothpaste. He claimed that by the time this chemical-laced oil reaches the shore, it is a "weathered, emulsified, caramel-colored mouse, like the food mousse". Adding that, "But if a small animal got coated enough with it, it could smother it. But if you got enough toothpaste on you, you couldn't breathe" (Bellingham Herald).
Yeah, oil and dispersant chemicals are just like mousse and toothpaste! Oh the humanity mediocrity! As thickheaded and ostrich-like as Barbour seems to be, however, he probably wouldn't be caught dead waste deep in that filth he so calmly likens to products found at a convenience store. If I didn't know any better, I would assume that Barbour was a current lobbyist specifically for BP after reading such asinine proclamations.
To put people with attitudes like this in positions of power is to put the wolves in charge of the sheep. It is to ensure that government will become the problem because they won't keep a boot on the necks of those who could potentially poison the rest of us and, instead, seek to run interference against those who regulate the actions of big business.
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal wins the award for politicians who slap government in the face then come crying to it when necessary. Jindal's name should be familiar. He's one of those southern governors who proclaimed he wouldn't accept millions of dollars in stimulus money which would have helped the unemployed in his state (Think Progress).
Jindal has also been on the news while leading crews of media all over the place to see what Louisiana is doing in response to the oil crisis. The sweaty, exasperated Jindal is often criticizing the federal response and beating his chest for more resources from the feds.
However, in Jindal's response to Obama's State of the Union speech last year, Jindal said, "The strength of America is not found in our government." So what can a weak government do for him? The "strength" of this nation is found in its people, right?
Thus, why can't Jindal's people in Louisiana battle BP and get them to protect his state? I'll tell you why: because 'government' IS the people and our collective ferocity is supposed to be fierce enough to protect all of us against both foreign and domestic threats. It is not an unimportant, tax-hungry tool of liberals as some republicans would have us believe.
The same mouth that Jindal stomps up and down the oily shoreline with is the same mouth with which he sought to distance the people from government. It's the same mouth criticizing the president and the same mouth calling for the president to end his moratorium on deep oil drilling while previously extolling the virtues of making it easier for businesses to function.
So long as those who seek political power continue to see government as the problem, then government WILL BE the problem because they lack the intellectual fortitude and foresight to see what a force for positivity a strong government can be for its people.
No, government is by no means perfect and is not in any way living up to its promise. But a large cause of that is because so many people who see it as a "problem" -- and who want to enrich their bank accounts -- have sought to implant themselves into positions of power within it, effectively ensuring its ineffectiveness.
And as long as those in power seek to work within the constraints of these systems instead of changing the system(s) entirely for the better, we will continue to be stuck in a downward spiral where acid-tongued beguilers separate us from the promise of what we can accomplish en masse as one nation acting in the form of a strong government against those who want to keep us separate and powerless.
© whisperDispatch
Think Progress - http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/20/jindal-unemployed/
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/02/barbour-oil-milkjug/
CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.jindal.transcript/
Bellingham Herald - http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/02/1460425/barbour-labels-oil-spill-wake.html
Source Watch - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haley_Barbour
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by heather-highdivechamp, July 09, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
Sums up the blog quite nicely
If those people hate government so much why do they run for office in the first place? It makes sense to ask the questions.