Lots of news continues to come in on these issues, and consequences of midterm elections. Perhaps most surprising,
resignation of top policy official on carbon emissions regulation at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling. The story highlights rifts/factions in EPA between those who want to aggressively use rule making authority to regulate carbon emissions, and those who seek a political resolution and legislative input from Congress (cabinet head Lisa Jackson is in later camp). Regardless, efforts to regulate through EPA have been dramatically scaled back since landmark ruling of Supreme Court on issue in 2007 (see
more conciliatory tone between Congress and EPA).
Also on the horizon, a looming mining decision (
here and
here) facing White House on uranium claims in Grand Canyon National Park region (to approve full scale mining, partial mining, or extend moratorium another twenty years). 10,000 proposals for exploration were submitted last year, the Grand Canyon area is said to have America's largest concentrations of high grade ore. The central issue is whether exploration and mining could contaminate ground water supplies … the Colorado River supplies drinking water to 30 million people. The legacy of contamination on the Navajo reservation looms large in the minds of local residents, environmental groups, and State and Federal agencies.
frozentripper wrote:
The notion that a left-leaning government can create change to counter the negative effects of corporate exploitation and the needs of the consumer class may be mostly a delusion created by popular media... the notion that there even are left-leaning governments existing today may itself be delusional. There is a Republican right wing party and a Democratic right wing party... they both exist to serve the interests of capitalist corporate powers behind the scenes.
And FT … I really like your analysis (you're sounding like a liberal). I think the plutocracy (or simply the richest 1%, who continue to do very well through economic downturn) is a major force in politics and global affairs behind the scenes (outsourcing local jobs and industries to Asia and elsewhere, lobbying for tax breaks, minimal regulation, devolution of jurisdiction to States, smaller Federal government, all the rest). It doesn't take much to see their fingerprints all over the Tea Party (namely in the persona of
Dick Armey, who orchestrated Republican takeover of House in 1990s, but also Jim DeMint, Rove and company, many other long standing stalwarts of the right, Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News media machine). But I disagree with you
very strongly that both political parties are two sides of the same coin, and are feeding out of the same corporate trough.
I think it's firmly the plutocracy that hopes you see it this way … in order to tone down excitement in the electorate, boost apathy, and drive down citizen organizing efforts (especially among voters who don't support their legislative agenda, namely democrats).
When you look at the legislative accomplishments of the Democrats over the last two years, it's hard not to see the right wing turn in the midterms (namely, the focus on less regulation, smaller government, cuts in spending) as anything but the status quo fighting back against legislative checks and policies that HAVE BEEN redistributive and targeted to middle class interests. Health care legislation (ObamaCare) stakes out huge claims on reining in excesses and regulating private insurance companies (perhaps the largest vested profit center in US economy second only to the defense industry). The same with banking reform (particularly efforts of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and White House) as a serious impediment to "business as usual" on Wall Street … and a necessary one in my mind given recent history. Energy reform and climate legislation was intended as a third pillar of reform and "change" from business as usual interests, looking at sustained long term economic growth and new opportunities for small businesses (rather than continued short term windfalls for the biggest and most well connected … Westinghouse, Halliburton, Exxon, Anadarko, Chesepeake, and so on). When asked why she thought Republicans have been so strident in opposing democratic legislative efforts … I think Pelosi gave the best response: "because
we have been effective." Effective in what, you ask … reining in unfettered corporate interests at the top (and the perils of "creative destruction" that can be so damaging to so many in the middle class when you have naked capitalism run amuck).
Question: Could you please describe for me how you think democratic efforts to impose limits on unrestricted capital in health care, banking, and energy are anything but a direct challenge to "business as usual" interests, Republican outlooks, and the historical view of regulatory efforts imposed after Great Depression and WWII that many feel is responsible for the rise of the middle class, the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history, and calm markets organized around sensible growth and not destructive boom and bust cycles? We live in drastically different times now compared to 50 years ago, with globalization as the single greatest challenge to our historical prominence, and there's a real debate to be had on what should be our new economic footing (and the role of government) moving forward. I think China, India, Brazil, and the EU all point in the direction of the leverage and scale that can be obtained with greater centralized authority and decision making. Here in the more backwards looking, centrist, and conservative West we seem to think unleashing the private sector to unregulated competition and getting the government out of the way is the best approach. I have my doubts! Watching debates unfold after midterms, all I can say with certainty is that it doesn't bode well for the environment!!