This is rather good news. I'm very skeptical about Obama's foreign policy, which is not dramatically different than anything we've seen before and I am also worried about some of his economic picks - although I'm more hopeful on the economy.
Progressives have rightly been critical of several recent statements from the president elect and many of his cabinet picks http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/09obama.html?em
I have, however, been optimistic about the incoming President and his administration on two fronts: Health Care reform and Global Warming.
I've blogged previously and will again on Obama's health care plans, but here I will say a word about Obama on Global Warming.
Today Al Gore met with Barack Obama in Chicago for about 45 minutes, and the two men declared themselves in "fundamental agreement" about the reality of global warming and what must be done to combat it. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/obama-meets-with-gore/
Given the Bush administration's massive neglect of and even outright hostility to combating global warming, and given Gore's incredible efforts to wake people up to this global catastrophe, this is a good sign.
In addition, Obama's rhetoric in announcing himself as an ally of those who wish to solve the climate crisis and vowing "green jobs" is very encouraging.
I voted for Obama for three reasons: 1) his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, 2) his passion for health care reform, and 3) his positions on the environment. So far, and despite his centrist and hawkish cabinet picks, he gives me solid hope that he will make significant strides in the areas that earned him my vote.
Note: For those out there who might still be doubtful about the reality of global warming and/or the human contribution to it, please familiarize yourself with the basic science: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101/
"I voted for Obama for three reasons: 1) his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, 2) his passion for health care reform, and 3) his positions on the environment."
ReplyDelete(1): Residual force.
(2): No universal coverage.
(3): Addressing global global climate change means fundamentally changing our infrastructure.
Obama may have been the better pick out of the main party candidates, but that doesn't change the fact that he is far less than ideal.
I agree that Obama is far less than ideal.
ReplyDeleteI take (1) and (2) from your list as correct. However, with regard to (2) I think he might lay the groundwork for what will eventually become universal coverage.
With regard to (1) I'm not for a residual force, but I think he will do more to get us out of there than either McCain or Hilary would have done.
As to (3). I don't think that is accurate. It seems he has stronger plans than that. And meeting with Al Gore is a good sign that he intends to follow through with some pretty serious changes.
But I will add to the negative as well. Obama will treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict like every other U. S. President. In short, he will aggravate rather than alleviate the problems.
Furthermore, his hawkish views toward Pakistan and Afghanistan will probably get us into some trouble. Not good.
Finally, he will not fundamentally changed the overly aggressive and far to under regulated economic system of super-capitalism that is America's unfortunate legacy to history.
All that said, I still have some hope and optimism on health care and the environment. And I even still have some hope - though less - for some economic recovery.
With regard to (3), I was suggesting that Obama probably won't support policies and legislation that promote a change in infrastructure. He wants to implement a cap-and-trade tax. You're probably familiar with how this is supposed to work. Businesses essentially pay a fee proportionate to their carbon emissions. That money is then supposed to be invested in "green technologies," gadgets big and small that will purportedly allow us to keep living the same lifestyle we do now but without ruining the earth. We'll still be able to get our food the same way (despite the fact that petroleum is interwoven into virtually every step of our agricultural system), we'll still be able to travel in personal vehicles from one end of the country to the other, our electricity will still be produced at some central location miles from where we live, and we'll still be able to plumb the depths of nature with our particle accelerators, space ships, satellites, and deep-sea submarines. It will all be done with "green technologies." It's a 1950's style utopia for the 21st century; all one has to do is replace "nuclear" with "green."
ReplyDeleteI'm skeptical of all this. Cap-and-trade isn't enough. Investment in "green technologies" isn't enough. Our energy inefficiencies are largely a consequence of a centralized energy model afforded to us by cheap energy (oil and coal) and a consumer-oriented, globalized economy that follows supply-side economic theory fixated on growth rather than sustainability. We've finally realized the damage this kind of system has done to the environment, but we're in denial that the system itself is the problem. Instead, we trick ourselves into believing that technology will save the system from itself in hopes that we can continue to enjoy its benefits, when what we should be doing is localizing our energy production and our economies. This isn't a fringe viewpoint. It was very much at the core of Greenpeace's [r]evolution report, released last year.
Extremely well said Nate! Yes, none of this is "enough." We need a fundamental change and a deep and pervasive level.
ReplyDeleteBut Gore has stressed this as well. And Obama's meeting with Gore and the comments of both parties are a positive step.
You are probably right that Obama will not do enough left to himself. I think, however, it is the job of WE THE PEOPLE to pressure him to do so.
And this meeting with Gore and his recent comments makes me hopeful that if at the grassroots level we work hard enough, he is may very well do what we ask of him.
"But Gore has stressed this as well. And Obama's meeting with Gore and the comments of both parties are a positive step."
ReplyDeleteNah. Unless he's changed his mind since An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's a techie prophet. It's his religion, and I'm an unbeliever. Further, you said this earlier:
Finally, he [i.e. Obama] will not fundamentally change the overly aggressive and far under regulated economic system of super-capitalism that is America's unfortunate legacy to history.
If you believe that, then there is no hope for Obama's administration introducing the requisite changes which would address environmental problems at their foundation. He'll maintain that the health and vibrancy of a nation is measured by its economic growth. If we localize economies and energy production, just the opposite will happen. These two things are intimately connected. Genuinely addressing environmental concerns means a fundamental economic change of focus. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"It is the job of WE THE PEOPLE to pressure him to do so"
This goes for (1), (2), (3), and a host of other things. Real change happens from the ground up. We've got to have a do-it-ourselves attitude about the things that we can immediately impact, and not wait for governments or businesses to do it for us. With things that are ultimately out of our control, like getting out of Iraq, we need to speak up.
With change.gov, Obama has at least given the appearance that he'll lead a more participatory government, one that works in a grassroots way with the public, listens to their voices, and enacts policy and legislation that best addresses their concerns. Right now, this is the slender peg on which I hang my hope.
Nate wrote:
ReplyDelete"Real change happens from the ground up. We've got to have a do-it-ourselves attitude about the things that we can immediately impact, and not wait for governments or businesses to do it for us. With things that are ultimately out of our control, like getting out of Iraq, we need to speak up."
I agree completely. With that Statement. It is we and not Obama who is the impetus for change.
Nate also wrote:
"With change.gov, Obama has at least given the appearance that he'll lead a more participatory government, one that works in a grassroots way with the public, listens to their voices, and enacts policy and legislation that best addresses their concerns. Right now, this is the slender peg on which I hang my hope."
Yes, this is my hope as well. I am encouraged, more than anything else, by the grassroots elements that still remain in Obama's administration.
If "we the people" can make our voices loud and clear . . . maybe something really wonderful could happen?
After all, women's rights, workers rights, ethnic minority rights . . . all these are the results of popular struggle.
The thing for me is this: If you look at the presidents in recent history: Gerald Ford, Reagan, Either Bush, Clinton, even Jimmy Carter, not one of them seemed this open to popular and progressive ideas. I'll grant that Carter is a moral exemplar and I confess myself and admirer of Old Jimmy. But Carter did not do too well as president.
Let's keep our hope for now, and see how he does.
Check this link out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newsweek.com/id/171252/output/print
It's Gore's latest thoughts on the issue. Some of what you say is spot on. Surely we need to make some major shifts.
But I think Gore does not merely think minor changes or simply carbon taxes and green technology is enough by itself
Hey Nate:
ReplyDeleteCheck this link out:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h776EhBm9MT8AWmnULEB5jp6pxCgD9500JAG0
The Obama Energy picks are looking promising.
Concerning the Gore interview:
ReplyDeleteHis basic point is that we've got to change industry, specifically the auto industry. So suppose the Big Three switch over to making only electric cars tomorrow. How much energy will it take to make those cars, and what resources will be used to produce that energy? Probably high-carbon resources, since they yield the most energy for the cheapest price at this point. So when the cost of oil and coal equals or surpasses that of alternative resources, the question is whether those resources can yield the amount of energy needed to sustain our mega-infrastructure and level of consumption we currently enjoy. The answer is an emphatic no. Solar, wind, hydrogen (the latter of which can only store energy produced from another source), etc. can't match up with oil. This means drastic downsizing and decentralization of the automobile industry (if it is to survive), more localized economies, and localized, small-scale energy production. Gore didn't mention any of the latter points. He thinks it suffices to switch the auto production lines from making gas guzzlers to electric powered vehicles. I don't think that's enough. Maybe this will help you better see my points in earlier comments.
Regarding Obama's energy picks: I like them. But 1) personnel doesn't guarantee policy (hence, unlike many, I haven't been up in arms about Obama's picks. He may just be surrounding himself with a diversity of opinion, and end up going his own way.), and 2) why would a gay and lesbian advocacy group be lobbying for someone in the running for an energy seat in the Obama administration? How does one's sexual orientation have anything to do with one's credentials for dealing with energy issues?
Well I agree that there is no reason that sexual orientation would be relevant to the job.
ReplyDeleteThat a gay woman was selected for a high position in the administration is a sign that our society has taken many positive steps forward/
But naturally her being gay is no reason to want her to get the job or not.
As for Gore. I don't disagree with you about the need to fundamentally decentralize energy. And I don't disagree that even Gore does not go as far as we would like.
I affirm, however, that Gore and Obama seem firmly committed to some very positive steps forward on energy. That's all.
As for coal and other such unfriendly technologies being used to create electric cars. I'm not so sure Gore would support that. Of course Obama might think that way.
I'll have to keep researching the topic, and we all have to keep our eyes glued to what the administration actually does once it takes office.